BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Canterbury City Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [23 April] as relates to the Canterbury City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 30 April.

Leeds City Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [23 April] as relates to the Leeds City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 30 April.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [23 April] as relates to the Nottingham City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 30 April.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [23 April] as relates to the Reading Borough Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 30 April.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [23 April] as relates to the City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 30 April.

City of Westminster Bill [Lords]

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [23 April] as relates to the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 30 April.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [23 April] as relates to the Transport for London Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 30 April.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Foreign Business Investment

Stuart Andrew: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on marketing Wales as a destination for foreign business investment.

Karl McCartney: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on marketing Wales as a destination for foreign business investment.

Cheryl Gillan: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on marketing Wales as a destination for foreign business investment. The recent Select Committee on Welsh Affairs report on inward investment in Wales highlighted a number of important issues, and we are committed to closer joint working with the Welsh Government to deliver more inward investment to Wales.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. One of the best ways to improve foreign investment in Wales is for the UK and Welsh Governments to work more closely together. Does she regret the apparent unwillingness of the Welsh Business Minister to do just that?

Cheryl Gillan: As the Welsh Affairs Committee has made clear in the inquiry into foreign direct investment, co-operation between both Governments is considered essential to marketing Wales and for potential investors. However, as economic development is devolved and led by the Labour Government in Wales, I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that the Business Minister did not give evidence to the Committee. I hope that we can develop a more mature attitude, as FDI projects in Wales have diminished over the years and we need to get them back up, so that we are competing effectively.

Karl McCartney: I thank my right hon. Friend for her earlier answer. Does she agree that it is right to explore investment opportunities in emerging markets? There are markets close to home, such as in the Commonwealth of Nations, which consists of 54 countries and has a population of 3.5 billion-plus, that also offer important investment potential.

Cheryl Gillan: The Prime Minister himself has said that he wants
	“to link Britain up to the fastest growing parts of the world, because we need to trade and export our way out of our economic difficulties.”
	We inherited those from the previous Government. That is why I have taken such a tremendous interest in this area and why I am very pleased that we have now joined up UK Trade & Investment to the Welsh Government. We have offered at least one of UKTI’s investment advisers to work in the Welsh Government offices in Treforest and for there to be two-way secondees between UKTI and the Welsh Government. That is real progress and it shows that we can get our two Governments working together in the interests of Wales.

Ann Clwyd: As the Secretary of State knows, good air transport links are essential in attracting business investment to Wales. What discussions has she had with the First Minister and the Welsh Government about improving the links between Cardiff airport and the rest of the world?

Cheryl Gillan: As the right hon. Lady knows, I have constant discussions with the First Minister and the Welsh Government, as does the Under-Secretary. We have certainly discussed the links and there has been some discussion of Cardiff airport. I am pleased to say that I have invited the owners of the airport to meet me shortly, because I have been concerned about some of the reports I have heard in the press. We should be trying to talk Cardiff airport up, not down.

Nia Griffith: I certainly welcome the announcement by the Labour Welsh Government that Tata Steel will invest £800 million in Wales, but as the Secretary of State will know Tata bosses have repeatedly said that the prices they have to pay for energy in the UK are simply not competitive when compared with what industry pays elsewhere. What discussions has she had with the Energy Secretary and energy companies to secure a better deal on energy prices for heavy industry to provide an incentive for companies such as Tata to invest in Wales?

Cheryl Gillan: One of the first things I did when I was appointed was visit Tata Steel, and I took the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, with me to discuss energy prices. The hon. Lady should know that all the Departments have been focused on the energy-intensive industries because we want to ensure that there are good manufacturing jobs in the future, not just in Wales but elsewhere in the UK. I have read the press release from the Welsh Government and the First Minister and he says that he was told at a meeting in India that £800 million has been approved over the next five years for investment in Tata Steel in Wales. I look forward to seeing the detail, because it seems to be a general announcement at this stage without too much detail attached to it.

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State was referring to the right hon. Member for Twickenham. We do not name people in this place.

Budget (Welsh Assembly)

Mark Tami: What assessment she has made of the effect of the Budget on the National Assembly for Wales; and if she will make a statement.

David Jones: As a result of the Budget the Welsh Government will benefit from an additional £11.7 million over the spending review period. Consequently, they will have received nearly £500 million in additional funding since the spending review in 2010.

Mark Tami: The granny tax, the pasty tax and cutting the top rate of tax for the rich while shutting Remploy factories that give disabled people the dignity of work: those are the priorities of this Government. The caravan tax will hit thousands of hard-working families in Wales, particularly in north Wales. Will the Minister speak to the Chancellor and get him to scrap the caravan tax, rather than sitting on his hands like the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) did the other evening?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman should not get so aerated. The Government fully recognise the importance of the holiday and touring park sector to the Welsh tourism industry and to the economy of Wales as a whole. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is consulting on the proposals, as he should know, and I hope he will play a part in that consultation, which closes on 18 May.

Jonathan Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Red Book reveals that although 14 Government Departments will see reductions in spending over the next four years, spending in Wales increases year on year despite the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government underspent by £385 million last year while cutting health spending in Wales?

David Jones: Absolutely. The reduction in the Welsh health budget is a matter of shame for the Welsh Assembly Government. I repeat that the Welsh Government will have had almost an additional £500 million since the spending review in 2010.

Peter Hain: Is it fair that Welsh churches, charities, caravanners, pensioners and almost everybody else will pay more taxes so that millionaires can each pay £40,000 less?

David Jones: That is a very strange rhetorical question. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the reduction in the top rate of tax will not take effect until the end of the public spending freeze and it is quite interesting that the Government of whom he was a member did not see fit to increase the rate of tax until a matter of weeks before their last Budget.

Peter Hain: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is not ashamed of that impact on some of the most vulnerable in our society. Can we in Wales, through him, apologise to the Secretary of State? We used to think that she was all on her own at sea in the Cabinet, but clearly they are now all at sea together. The Budget omnishambles, Abu Qatada, petrol pump panic—at least Wales has a Labour Government to give us some protection from this Tory-Lib Dem incompetence. At least Wales can reject this disastrous Budget by voting Labour in the council elections next Thursday.

David Jones: I am still waiting for the question, Mr Speaker.

Roger Williams: Does the Minister agree that with new law-making powers and a £15 billion budget, the Welsh Assembly Government have both the tools and the money to make a real and lasting difference in Wales?

David Jones: Yes, indeed. It is vital, too, that the Welsh Assembly Government work closely with the Government in Westminster for the good of the people of Wales. I very much hope that we will now see a far more joined-up approach taken by the Welsh Assembly Government in that regard.

Enterprise Zones

Nick Smith: What assessment she has made of the treatment of capital allowances in enterprise zones in Wales; and if she will make a statement.

Cheryl Gillan: The Chancellor announced funding for enhanced capital allowances in the Deeside enterprise zone in the Budget in addition to the money already provided for enterprise zones in Wales. We are committed to looking at how we can provide these allowances elsewhere but the Welsh Government must develop strong, detailed and robust business cases.

Nick Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for her interest in the Blaenau Gwent enterprise zone. Plans for a motor industry complex there are now at a critical juncture. We need to know if capital allowances can be delivered or if other tax treatments are a better prospect. May I press her for a meeting between developers and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so that we can thrash out a solution?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman has worked tirelessly for his constituency to develop these proposals for the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone, and I really do congratulate him on that. We have met on other occasions and I have written to him again today, saying that I am very willing to try to secure a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but without a business case, the Treasury cannot make any decisions on further enhanced capital allowances. I urge the hon. Gentleman to discuss the subject with the Welsh Government as well as with our Government.

Broadband Technology

Mark Williams: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on funding for broadband technology in Wales.

Bob Blackman: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on funding for broadband technology in Wales.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had, and continues to have, regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, Welsh Government Ministers and other interested parties on the funding of broadband technology in Wales.

Mark Williams: I thank the Minister for that response and congratulate him on his part in securing £57 million for Wales and, of course, the broadband provision for Cardiff. However, on the roll-out of broadband in scattered rural areas, does the Minister share the frustrations of many in my constituency—small business men, and consumers trying to access their bank accounts—at the speed with which that is being delivered in Wales when compared with authorities such as Cornwall, which are speeding ahead?

David Jones: As my hon. Friend says, the Government have made available a total of £56.9 million to help bring superfast broadband to Wales. The Welsh Government are working with Broadband Delivery UK on how best to employ the funding, but we are indeed looking to the Welsh Government to make an announcement as to their contribution to speed up the process. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will be pleased with the announcement by BT last December that 33 rural communities will have access to faster broadband by this summer, including Aberystwyth.

Hywel Williams: The South Wales chamber of commerce has called for a more ambitious target for broadband speeds in Wales for 2015, at 50 megabits per second from the previous target of 30. What are the Government doing here, in conjunction with the Welsh Government, to achieve such a target, which could clearly be very beneficial for Welsh business?

David Jones: It would indeed be beneficial, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that in the Budget a sum of £12 million was made available to help transform Cardiff into a super-connected city, which should result in speeds of between 60 and 100 megabits per second—plus, of course, wi-fi connectivity.

Hywel Williams: Cardiff is not Wales, although some people might be under that misapprehension. Countries such as Finland and Malta have introduced a universal service obligation on internet coverage and connections similar to that for the postal service, to ensure that everybody has equal access to the internet and its advantages, irrespective of location, be that rural or otherwise. Will the Government look into that, and do so in time for the next communications Bill—or perhaps it is something that the Welsh Government can do under the powers set out in part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006?

David Jones: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman: Cardiff is not Wales, but he referred specifically to the South Wales chamber of commerce. Indeed, as he knows, it is the ambition of this Government to ensure that superfast broadband is rolled out throughout the United Kingdom by the end of this Parliament, and at the moment we are on track.

Bob Blackman: Broadband suppliers have shown a marked reluctance to invest in Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the people of Wales have the benefit of new technology, and that perhaps the Welsh Assembly might use some of this vast underspend to invest in Wales, so that everyone has the benefit of broadband?

David Jones: Yes, indeed. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), the Welsh Assembly Government are expected to contribute to the process. They are working well with BDUK, but we are waiting for their commitment in financial terms.

Economic Growth

Andrew Selous: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on encouraging economic growth in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: Economic growth is a key priority for this Government and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on ways to encourage economic growth in Wales. Yesterday I met the business advisory group and heard directly from members how this Government’s growth policies are helping businesses in Wales to face the current economic challenges.

Andrew Selous: Does the Secretary of State agree that the fact that the recent Budget is taking 95,000 people out of tax altogether in Wales is a big boost for business in Wales, as more people will have greater spending power and find it worth their while to be in work?

Cheryl Gillan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It must be very good for those people whom we have taken out of tax altogether and the lower paid workers who will benefit from our tax changes, because it will put money directly back in their pockets rather better than the Welsh Labour Government down in Cardiff Bay, under whose auspices council tax has doubled in Wales.

Jonathan Edwards: The Budget included a clear framework for reducing localised pay in the public sector. Considering that there is a direct link between money in people’s pockets and spending in the local economy, how will depressing pay encourage economic growth in the poorest parts of the British state?

Cheryl Gillan: When it comes to local pay, our aim is to create a more flexible labour market that is more responsive to the challenging economic conditions we currently face. We want to create more private sector growth and, as a consequence, wealth in Wales and across the UK.

Alun Michael: If the Secretary of State thinks this Government are interested in growth, she is living in cloud cuckoo land. Is she not keeping up with today’s news that shows that the Chancellor’s obsessive intention of cutting too deep and too fast is taking us back into recession?

Cheryl Gillan: No. I have to say that today’s news is disappointing but not totally unexpected. Britain cannot be immune to what is happening on our doorstep. For example, Italy, Holland, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal are already in recession. But let us remember that since the coalition took office in 2010, more than 630,000 private sector jobs have been created, more than outstripping
	job losses in the public sector, and private sector employment in Wales rose by 12,000 between quarter 3 in 2010 and quarter 3 in 2011.

South Wales Valley Railways

Huw Irranca-Davies: What recent progress has been made on electrification of the south Wales valley railways; and if she will make a statement.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend and I are working with the Secretary of State for Transport and Welsh Ministers on the business case for electrification of the south Wales valley lines. We expect to make an announcement in the summer.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has the lovely Ebbw vale line. I live in the beautiful Llynfi valley and catch the Maesteg to Gloucester train via all points including Cardiff and Newport, a route which sometimes takes me through the delightful constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). All these link even as far west as Swansea. We are all valleys people on valleys rail connections, so when considering electrification for south Wales and the valleys, will the Minister’s definition of south Wales be my definition—the definition of the people of south Wales—because when it comes to electrification, we are all in this together?

David Jones: Yes, indeed. We recognise the importance of the electrification of the south Wales valley lines to the economy of the Cardiff city region and wider. The Chancellor of the Exchequer singled out electrification of those lines as a key infrastructure priority in the Budget, and I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed his personal commitment to that when he visited Wales earlier this month.

Rail Transport

Albert Owen: What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister of Wales on developing rail transport in Wales.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister about a range of transport issues that affect Wales, most recently last week.

Albert Owen: Has the Wales Office done a study of the impact of High Speed 2 on Wales, and has the Wales Office put the case for improving the lines west of Crewe and line speeds, as well as possible electrification, so that we can have a high-speed Wales?

David Jones: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about speeds on the north Wales coast line. The Wales Office discusses these matters regularly with the Department for Transport and will continue to do so.

Karen Lumley: What discussions has the Minister had with the European Parliament on trans-European network funding to enhance the railways?

David Jones: As we consider what methods to adopt to improve the funding regime for railway lines in Wales, we will certainly look carefully at the EU TEN network funding, which is available from the European Community.

Si�n James: As we know, economic growth is one of the ways we can improve infrastructure in Wales, but to do so we need a modern railway, and that means electrification as far as Swansea. What impact assessment has been made of the effect on the commuter and holiday trade of rail electrification to Swansea?

David Jones: I commend the hon. Lady for her interest in this matter on behalf of her constituents and can assure her that we remain very interested in the electrification of the line and are working closely with the Welsh Assembly Government to develop the business case. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place. Let us have a bit of hush for Mr Robert Halfon.

Fuel Prices

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of petrol and diesel prices on the Welsh economy.

David Jones: The Government recognise that businesses, individuals and families are struggling with the rising cost of fuel, particularly in rural areas. We have eased the burden on motorists by approximately £4.5 billion through the abolition of the fuel duty escalator and the introduction of the fair fuel stabiliser and by cutting fuel duty.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the Government’s cuts in fuel duty, but the market price of oil is still too high, partly because of oil speculation. The United States is bringing in tough penalties for price fixing and market manipulation. Will the Minister urge his Government colleagues to look at this and put pressure on the big oil firms to cut prices at the pumps?

David Jones: As I have said, the Government recognise the impact of the rising cost of fuel on people and businesses in Wales. However, it should be remembered that the duty increase that was expected to take place in January this year has been deferred to August and we have cancelled the inflation increase planned for August, which means that there will be just one inflation-only increase this year.

David Hanson: Can the Minister tell us the price of a litre of fuel this time last year and today, and is the rise anything to do with the VAT increase that he voted for?

David Jones: The price of a litre of fuel in my constituency—I assume the right hon. Gentleman means petrol—is approximately £1.40. I will be happy to write to him with the figure for last year.

Aerospace Industry

Gavin Williamson: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on the aerospace industry in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and other organisations on a range of issues, including the aerospace industry in Wales.

Gavin Williamson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while the UK Government have taken a lead in establishing enterprise zones, the onus is now on the Welsh Government to ensure that their enterprise zone for the aerospace industry in St Athan is a success?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As far as enterprise zones are concerned, a great deal depends on what the Labour Welsh Government will do, because we have capital allowances for only one enterprise zone, which is already in Deeside. The enterprise zone to which he refers will be crucial to the UK and will secure work on the next generation of aircraft, because some 27,000 large aircraft, worth $3 trillion, will be needed over the next 20 years, around 7,000 new helicopters will be required within the next decade and there is a huge potential future market in unmanned air vehicles, and I want us to benefit from that demand in the aerospace business in Wales.

Ian Lucas: Is it not the case that the success of the UK aerospace industry is due to government and industry work together—[Interruption]—and that saying that business succeeds because government gets out of the way is arrant nonsense?

Cheryl Gillan: Over this noise, Mr Speaker, I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that government should get out of the way of business. Indeed, that is exactly what this Government are doing, with the red tape challenge, by reducing the bureaucracy that the previous Labour Government imposed on our industries, and by reducing the rate of corporation tax so that our business environment can be one of the most competitive in the G20.

Budget (Women)

Madeleine Moon: What assessment she has made of the implications of the Budget for women in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: Last month’s Budget was one of fairness and values. Although we had to make some difficult decisions, we are committed to ensuring that women all over the UK play a full part in the economic recovery.

Madeleine Moon: Women in Wales are suffering and struggling with rising food prices, the rising cost of living and the rising costs of child care. In the most recent quarter, 4,000 additional women became unemployed. How many women in Wales will benefit from the reduction in taxation on high-level earners from 50% to 45%? Will that benefit women in Wales?

Cheryl Gillan: Despite the recession, the employment rate for women remains historically high, at 65.3% now compared with 53% in 1971. Employment has fallen more sharply among men during the recession, so frankly it will be expected to rise more quickly as the economy recovers. This is, however, the fourth consecutive set of figures to show employment and economic activity rising in Wales, which I would have thought the hon. Lady would have welcomed.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Gordon Henderson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 April.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sapper Connor Ray, of 33 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), who died on Wednesday 18 April from wounds that he sustained in Afghanistan. He was described by all who served with him as a superb soldier. His dedication and his courage will never be forgotten, and we send our condolences to his family and his loved ones.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Gordon Henderson: I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s tribute to Sapper Connor Ray and, in doing so, ask my right hon. Friend whether he will confirm that, although British servicemen and women are scheduled to leave Afghanistan in 2014, the actual pace of withdrawal will be determined first and foremost by the need to minimise the risk to those members of our armed forces serving in Afghanistan at that time.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can confirm that by the end of 2014 we will not have anything like the troop numbers that we have now, and we will not be in a combat role. Of course, post 2014 we do believe in having a training role with the Afghan army, particularly the officer training role that President Karzai has personally asked for us to undertake. The speed of the reductions between now and the end of 2014 will be in accordance with the conditions on the ground and with what is right in terms of transitioning from allied control to Afghan control—and at all times, of course, paramount in our minds is the safety and security of our brave armed forces, to whom I pay tribute again today.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sapper Connor Ray of 33 Engineer Regiment. He carried out his duties with the utmost courage, saving many Afghan and British lives by what he did, and our deepest condolences go to his family and friends.
	Today we had the catastrophic news that Britain is back in recession. I am sure that the Prime Minister has spent the past 24 hours thinking of an excuse as to why it is nothing to do with him, so what is his excuse this time?

David Cameron: These are very, very disappointing figures. I do not seek to excuse them, I do not seek to try to explain them away, and let me be absolutely clear that there is no complacency at all in this Government in dealing with what is a very tough situation that, frankly, has just got tougher. I believe the truth is this: it is very difficult recovering from the deepest recession in living memory, accompanied as it was by a debt crisis. Our banks had too much debt, our households had too much debt, our Government had too much debt. We have to rebalance our economy, we need a bigger private sector, we need more exports and more investment. This is painstaking, difficult work, but we will stick with our plans, stick with the low interest rates and do everything that we can to boost growth, competitiveness and jobs in our country.

Edward Miliband: Typical of this arrogant Prime Minister—he tries to blame everyone else. The reality is that this is a recession made by him and the Chancellor in Downing street. Over the last 18 months since the catastrophic spending review, our economy has shrunk. This is a slower recovery from recession even than that in the 1930s. The reality is that it is families and businesses who are paying the price for his arrogance and complacency. Why does he not admit that it is his catastrophic economic policy, his plan for austerity, which is cutting too far and too fast, that has landed us back in recession?

David Cameron: Not a single business organisation, serious commentator or international body thinks that these problems emerged in the last 24 months. The debt crisis has been long in making; the failure to regulate our banks has been long in making; the Government overspending has been long in making. This is a tough and difficult situation that the economy is in, but the one thing that we must not do is abandon the public spending and deficit reduction plans, because the solution to a debt crisis cannot be more debt. We must not put at risk the low interest rates that are absolutely essential to our recovery—that would be absolute folly. That is why no business organisation and no international economic organisation suggests we follow that course.

Edward Miliband: It is all bluster; the Prime Minister’s plan has failed. That is the reality. They were the people who said that Britain was a safe haven—the Chancellor even said it on Monday—and we are back in recession. It was the Prime Minister who said that we were
	“out of the danger zone”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 901.]
	and this is what has happened. As even his own Back Benchers are saying, the complacent, “arrogant posh boys” just don’t get it.
	Let us turn from the economic disaster of this Government to the political disaster that is the Culture Secretary. We now know, from the evidence published yesterday, that throughout the time when the Culture Secretary was supposed to be acting in an impartial manner, he and his office were providing in advance a constant flow of confidential information to News Corporation about statements to be made in this House, his private discussions with the regulators and his discussions with opposing parties. Having seen the 163 pages published yesterday, is the Prime Minister seriously telling us that the Secretary of State was acting as he should have done, in a transparent, impartial and fair manner?

David Cameron: Let me first of all finish off on the economy, which the right hon. Gentleman has moved off—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the Prime Minister has to say on the economy, and on anything else.

David Cameron: We will not let anyone forget who got us into this mess in the first place. More spending, more borrowing, more debt—that is what caused these problems; it cannot be the solution to these problems.
	Let me turn to the Leveson inquiry. I set up the Leveson inquiry and its terms of reference were agreed by the leader of the Liberal Democrat party and the leader of the Labour party. I believe that to step in and prejudge that inquiry would be wrong. Lord Justice Leveson has made that precise point this morning. Let me read to the House what he has said. [ Interruption. ] Perhaps the House would like to listen. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the Prime Minister has to say, and then the questioning will continue.

David Cameron: Lord Justice Leveson said this morning that
	“it is very important to hear every side of the story before drawing conclusions.”
	He then said that
	“although I have seen requests for other inquiries and investigations and, of course, I do not seek to constrain Parliament, it seems to me that the better course is to allow this Inquiry to proceed.”
	Having set up this inquiry and agreed with the inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the inquiry.

Edward Miliband: Lord Justice Leveson is responsible for a lot of things, but he is not responsible for the integrity of the Prime Minister’s Government. In case he has forgotten, that is his responsibility as the Prime Minister.
	It beggars belief that the Prime Minister can defend the Culture Secretary, because he was not judging this bid—he was helping the bid by News Corporation. Two days before the statement to the House on 25 January, the Culture Secretary’s office was not only colluding with News Corp to provide it with information in advance, it was hatching a plan to ensure that it would be
	“game over for the opposition”
	to the bid. Does the Prime Minister really believe that is how a judge and his advisers are supposed to act?

David Cameron: The Leader of the Opposition clearly does not think that what Lord Leveson said this morning matters. Let me remind him of what he said yesterday about the Leveson inquiry. He said:
	“I think”—
	this is the Leader of the Opposition speaking—
	“that it’s right that the Leveson Inquiry takes its course”.
	He went on to say that
	“the most important thing is that the Leveson Inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened, of what Labour did, of what the Conservatives did and we reach a judgment about that.”
	Is it not typical of the right hon. Gentleman? In the morning he sets out his very clear position, but in the afternoon he cannot resist the passing political bandwagon.

Edward Miliband: Totally—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I said the Prime Minister must be heard, and the Leader of the Opposition must be heard. Both will be heard, however long it takes. It is very clear.

Edward Miliband: Totally pathetic answers. He is the Prime Minister. If he cannot defend the conduct of his own Ministers, his Ministers should be out of the door. He should fire them. He does not even try to defend the Secretary of State and what he did. The Secretary of State told the House on 3 March, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), that
	“today we are publishing…all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
	But he did not, because 163 pages have now emerged. The Prime Minister does not defend him over giving confidential information to one party in the case; he does not defend him over collusion; is he really going to defend him about not being straight with this House of Commons?

David Cameron: Let me make it absolutely clear that the Culture Secretary, who has my full support for the excellent job that he does, will be giving a full account of himself in this House of Commons this afternoon and in front of the Leveson inquiry, and he will give a very good account of himself for this very simple reason: that in judging this important bid, he sought independent advice from independent regulators at every stage, although he did not need to, and he took that independent advice at every stage, although he did not need to. The way he has dealt with this issue is in stark contrast to the Governments of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Edward Miliband: I say this to the Prime Minister: while his Culture Secretary remains in place, and while he refuses to come clean on his and the Chancellor’s meetings with Rupert Murdoch, the shadow of sleaze will hang over this Government. It is a pattern with this Prime Minister—Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and now the Culture Secretary. When is he going to realise that it is time to stop putting his cronies before the interests of the country?

David Cameron: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he called for an independent judicial inquiry. That is the inquiry I have set up. He agreed the terms of reference. Now he is flip-flopping all over the place. The fact is that the problem of closeness between politicians and media proprietors had been going on for years and it is this Government who are going to sort it out. Whether it is the proper regulation of the press, whether it is cleaning up our financial system, whether it is dealing with our debts: I don’t duck my responsibilities. What a pity he cannot live up to his.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: I call Karl McCartney.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Mr Karl McCartney.

Karl McCartney: Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent very good news in the manufacturing and engineering sectors in Lincoln? Hoval has seen an increase in turnover of over 20% to around £17.5 million; Italian firm Brifrangi has confirmed an investment of circa £50 million in a new tooling press, one of the largest in the world; and Siemens is involved in the first new engineering school in our country for 20 years. Will my right hon. Friend accept my personal invitation to visit Lincoln to see for himself the excellent progress our city is enjoying under his Conservative-led Government?

David Cameron: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation and will try to take it up. As I said earlier, although there is very disappointing news today about what is happening in our economy, underneath that there is a rebalancing that needs to take place, and is taking place, in terms of manufacturing investment and exports, and in terms of the Government getting behind that, with more investment in apprenticeships and more investments in technical hubs at our universities, like the one at the university of Lincoln, and by cutting business taxes so that we get Britain working and making things again.

Yasmin Qureshi: On Monday, the Prime Minister said that he was going on an economic rescue mission. Is it not fair to say that that mission has failed spectacularly in the light of the figures released today?

David Cameron: The point I would make to the hon. Lady is that the recession we suffered—a 7% contraction of our gross domestic product—was much bigger even than what happened in America. It is worth remembering that the biggest bank bail-out anywhere in the world was not in America; it was here in Britain. Getting out of the recession, the financial crisis and the debt crisis is difficult, painstaking work, but this Government are committed to doing just that.

Gordon Birtwistle: Last week, I met the chief executive of the fourth largest manufacturing group in the UK, Unison Engineering, which has a substantial factory in Burnley. He has been instructed by his US board to increase the turnover of his UK operations so as to take advantage of the Government’s industrial strategy. He is concerned about the lack of skills. [ Interruption. ] Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government investment in apprenticeships and university technical colleges will increase over the coming years?

David Cameron: What is interesting is that if any Member of Parliament wants to talk about manufacturing success or business success in their constituency, they are shouted down by the Opposition, because all they want to hear is bad news and to talk our economy down. We are investing in skills and putting more money into the apprenticeship schemes and the university technical colleges. I was at Airbus in Filton this week
	seeing the expansion and growth plans there, and it is good to hear what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Shabana Mahmood: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor, who said in 2008 that
	“once…you’ve got a downturn you cannot possibly slash public expenditure”?
	Will the Prime Minister stick to his complacent plan of cutting too far and too fast, which has delivered a double-dip recession?

David Cameron: Well read. [Interruption.] The point is that we inherited from the Labour party a budget deficit of 11%. The budget deficit we inherited was bigger than Greece’s, bigger than Spain’s, bigger than Portugal’s. If you do not deal with your debts and your deficit, you will never keep interest rates low, and it is low interest rates that offer us the best prospects of getting out of this difficult economic situation we are in.

Jeremy Lefroy: At least half a million children—

Hon. Members: Reading!

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear from Mr Lefroy.

Jeremy Lefroy: At least half a million children died from malaria last year. On world malaria day, may I thank the Prime Minister for his personal commitment to combating this disease? Will he join me in recognising the international leadership that British scientists, aid workers and volunteers, including Rotarians in Penkridge and Stafford in my constituency, show in combating malaria?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the opportunity to join my hon. Friend in wishing the people of Penkridge well. He did rather better in convincing the people of Penkridge to vote for him than I did in 1997. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of malaria on world malaria day. Some 15,000 children die every week from what is a preventable illness. That is why I am proud that Britain is leading on this issue, putting money into the aid budget and malarial bed nets, and making all the scientific advances that he referred to. This is a vital agenda, and even in difficult economic times, we are right to pursue it.

Mark Hendrick: Does this out-of-touch Prime Minister still believe that the British economy is
	“out of the danger zone”?—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 901.]

David Cameron: One of the biggest problems we faced on taking office was the danger that financial markets would take the same view of Britain that they took of Greece, Spain and Portugal, where interest rates were rising. That Britain has such low interest rates demonstrates that we have credibility. Difficult decisions are needed to get on top of the debt and deficit, and to deal with public spending, but they are the right decisions, not least because, as the shadow Chancellor once said, low interest rates are the mark of economic credibility.

Craig Whittaker: The head teachers of Calder and Todmorden high schools in Calder Valley welcome the Government’s educational reforms. [Hon. Members: “Reading!”] They are two schools that never qualified for the Building Schools for the Future programme under the previous Government because they attained far too highly. [Hon. Members: “Reading!”] Will the Prime Minister tell the pupils of those schools when they can expect an announcement on the priority school buildings project to which they both applied?

David Cameron: We are investing more in school building than Labour did in its first two Parliaments after 1997. The figure is along the lines of £17 billion during the spending review period. So there are opportunities for new classrooms and buildings, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education, who is listening carefully to my hon. Friend, will be in touch with him about their prospects.

Iain McKenzie: Did the Prime Minister agree with the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) when she said that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear the question.

Iain McKenzie: Did the Prime Minister agree with the hon. Lady when she called him and the Chancellor “posh boys” showing no compassion or understanding for the lives of others? Is that not further evidence that they are out of touch and an explanation for this double-dip recession?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) about many, many things.

Andrew Jones: Over the past two years, UK exports have grown by 23%, and growth to the BRIC countries has been even faster. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 151 winners of the Queen’s award for enterprise this week on their success in international trade, particularly GSPK Circuits in Knaresborough and Boroughbridge in my constituency?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating that business on its export performance. When we look at some of the fastest-growing markets in the world—whether India, China or some of the south-east Asian markets I visited a few days ago—we see that our export performance in some of those markets, compared with 2009, is up by as much as 60%. As well as those markets, however, we also have to remember our old friends, as it were, and the fact that we still export more to the Republic of Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. So we need to expand our existing markets, but it is far harder work to get into the fast-growing markets of the world.

David Simpson: Recently, the Prime Minister conceded that the Government had made an “important mistake” in the handling of the fuel crisis. Would it not be a positive
	step in correcting that mistake were the Government to scrap the 3p increase in August, in order to help motorists, haulage companies and hard-pressed families in the UK?

David Cameron: The Government have actually used about £4 billion of Budget money to keep petrol prices down. They are about 6p lower than they would be under Labour’s plans. Let me update the hon. Gentleman and the House on the issue of the fuel strike. It now looks as if there will be longer before a strike could take place. I am determined that we use that time to ensure that every piece of resilience is in place. The plans we inherited would have allowed the military to provide perhaps 10% of our fuel needs. We have now managed to lift that to about 60% or 70%. We are in a much better place now because of the proper emergency planning that this Government have done, as opposed to the Labour party, which just crosses its fingers and hopes for the best from the trade unions.

David Amess: Next Wednesday my mother Maud will celebrate her 100th birthday. Living, as she does, five minutes from the Olympic stadium, she has agreed to be Usain Bolt’s pacemaker, in order to give the other athletes a chance. Will my right hon. Friend now call on the indomitable spirit of former Land Army girls such as my mother and encourage our Olympic athletes to go for gold?

David Cameron: I will certainly do that. I have written to Maud to congratulate her on this fantastic milestone, and I am sure that as she speeds past Usain Bolt, she will turn round and reflect that the only way is Essex.

Mr Speaker: I am delighted that the Prime Minister has written to her. That makes two of us.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Prime Minister has spent plenty of time cosying up to News Corporation in return for political support, so—[ Interruption. ] I can wait. He is therefore well qualified to answer this answer: when Alex Salmond agreed to act as a lobbyist for News Corp, was he acting in self-interest or in the interests of Scotland?

David Cameron: First, I think Alex Salmond can answer for himself. Secondly, this is another issue for the Leveson inquiry—properly set up, properly established—which is going to interview all the politicians, including all sorts of people who cosied up to News International over the years. I think on all sides of the House there is a bit of a need to say, hand on heart, that we all did too much cosying up to Rupert Murdoch—I think we would agree. On that basis, I am sure that Lord Leveson will make some important recommendations.

Andrew Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister seen the research published today by the TaxPayers Alliance, which shows that there are 3,097 town hall employees earning more than £100,000 and 52 earning more than £250,000? My constituents in Burton cannot understand such exorbitant salaries. What can we do about it?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise this issue. The important thing that we have done is to make completely transparent the pay in our town halls and local government. Sadly, I believe there is still one local council—a Labour-controlled council in Nottinghamshire—that is not making that information available. Every council should be transparent about how it spends council tax payers’ money.

Barbara Keeley: Last year the Prime Minister said that those warning him that cutting too far and too fast would risk a double-dip recession should apologise. Now that he has delivered a double-dip recession, should he not apologise?

David Cameron: The point I would make to the hon. Lady is this: we faced a very difficult situation, with an 11% budget deficit. If we had listened to the plans of the Opposition, and spent more, borrowed more and increased our debt, that would have only made the debt crisis worse. How can the answer to a debt crisis be more borrowing? That is the question the Opposition can never answer.

Bob Blackman: After weeks of ducking and diving, Ken Livingstone has given a partial publication of his tax affairs. Sadly, he refuses to publish the tax affairs of Silveta, the company he set up to avoid paying his fair share of tax. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ken Livingstone has ceased to be the old pretender and has now become the Artful Dodger?

David Cameron: I think my hon. Friend speaks for all of London when he makes that point. Ken Livingstone owes the people of London some proper transparency about this company and about his tax bill. There are still several days to go before this key election. He should make that information available. I have to say that I had something of a shock this week, because I have hardly ever agreed with anything Alan Sugar has ever said, but in saying that Londoners should not back Ken, he was spot on.

Jim Cunningham: Now that the Prime Minister has admitted that he created the economic mess that the country is in, may I be helpful to him and suggest that he drop his ridiculous proposals for regional pay cuts and accelerate the capital programme for schools in Coventry and the west midlands?

David Cameron: As I said earlier, we are spending more on capital on schools in this Parliament than either of the first two Labour Parliaments. I am very happy for Education Ministers to look specifically at the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see what can be done. I also hope that he will join me and invite people in Coventry on 3 May to vote yes for a mayor for Coventry.

Stephen Lloyd: Every year, millions of British people donate money to charities. They do so for the simple reason that they want to help the cause or help others who are worse off then they are. I would describe those actions by members of the public as honourable, kind and selfless. We have all
	heard recently that some, but not all, of our wealthy citizens want to donate money to charity only if they can continue to reduce their tax bill. Does the Prime Minister think that their motives are honourable, kind and selfless?

David Cameron: We should support people who give money to charity, which is why the Government have expanded gift aid very generously and made available a change to help people with inheritance tax if they leave bequests to charity. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Budget set out a number of limits to reliefs, and we specifically identified the potential problem for charities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consult very widely on the issue of how we can make sure that we encourage philanthropic giving and charities, and what charities do in our country.

Angela Smith: The Prime Minister’s dismissive response to the fact that the UK is now back in recession suggests that his mind is on other things. Should he not just sack his Culture Secretary and concentrate properly on the job of sorting out the British economy?

David Cameron: I think the hon. Lady would recognise that there is absolutely nothing dismissive about either my reply on the economy or, indeed, what I think we need to do. We are in a difficult economic situation in Britain, just as we see recessions in Denmark, in Holland, in Italy and in Spain. That is what is happening across the continent with which we trade. It is absolutely essential that we take every step that we can to help our economy out of recession: investing in apprenticeships; setting up enterprise zones; cutting business taxes; and prioritising investment in our infrastructure. We are doing all those things, and we will do more to help get our economy out of the mess in which the last Government left it.

Stephen Hammond: Far from being dismissive, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the figures were disappointing. Does he agree that if we are getting out of a debt crisis we should not spend more money? There is no international organisation suggesting that this country change course and spend more money to do so.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just that there is no international body making that case—there is no business organisation making that case. Indeed, the Institute of Directors and the CBI have both said today that, while these figures are disappointing, we must not give up the low interest rates and the credible fiscal policy that we have, as that would land our economy in the problems that the Opposition left it in.

David Winnick: It is a sorry state of affairs when in just two years the economy is in deep recession and now the Government are deep in sleaze. Same old Tories.

David Cameron: I think Russell Brand got it about right yesterday.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: It may relate to the Prime Minister but, as far as I am concerned, unless I am advised otherwise, points of order come after statements, and the statement—

Chris Bryant: He will regret that.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that I will.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister will regret it.

Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said from a sedentary position. We will now hear the statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I call Mr Secretary Hunt.

Leveson Inquiry

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following yesterday’s developments at the Leveson inquiry. Although I intend to respond fully to allegations about my conduct and that of my Department when I present my evidence to Lord Justice Leveson, I believe that it is important to update the House on actions that have been taken as a result of evidence released yesterday.
	We are 273 days into a process whose first stage will last until October. This is not the time to jump on a political bandwagon—[ Interruption. ] What the public want to hear are not my views or those of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but the views of Lord Justice Leveson when he has considered all the evidence. I do, however, think that it is right to set the record right on a number of issues, in the light of the evidence heard yesterday at the inquiry. Specifically, on the merger of News Corp with BSkyB, I would like to remind the House of the process that I followed. Throughout, I have followed due process, seeking the advice of independent regulators—something I did not have to do—and after careful consideration, acting on their advice. I have published all advice that I have received from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, together with correspondence between myself and News Corporation, including details of all meetings that I have held in relation to this process.
	As part of this process, my officials and I have engaged with News Corporation and its representatives, as well as other interested parties—both supporters and opponents of the merger. Transcripts of conversations and texts published yesterday between my special adviser, Adam Smith, and a News Corporation representative have been alleged to indicate that there was a back channel through which News Corporation was able to influence my decisions. That is categorically not the case—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down a bit. The statement must be heard. There will be a full opportunity for questioning of the Secretary of State, as he would expect. Whether he expects it or not, that is what will happen. That is right and proper, but it is also right and proper that the statement should be heard with courtesy.

Jeremy Hunt: However, the volume and tone of those communications were clearly not appropriate in a quasi-judicial process, and today Adam Smith has resigned as my special adviser. Although he accepts that he overstepped the mark on this occasion, I want to set on record that I believe that he did so unintentionally and did not believe that he was doing anything more than giving advice on process. I believe him to be someone of integrity and decency, and it is a matter of huge regret to me that this has happened.
	I only saw the transcripts of these communications yesterday. They did not influence my decisions in any way at all—not least because I insisted on hearing the advice of independent regulators at every stage of the process. I will give my full record of events when I give
	evidence to Lord Justice Leveson. However, I would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible, which is why I have written to Lord Justice Leveson asking if my appearance can be brought forward. I am totally confident that when I present my evidence, the public will see that I conducted this process with scrupulous fairness throughout.

Harriet Harman: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Everyone recognises that the £8 billion News Corp bid for BSkyB was of huge commercial importance and that it had profound implications for newspapers and for all of broadcasting, including the BBC. The Business Secretary had been stripped of his responsibility for deciding on the bid because he had already made up his mind against it, but the Culture Secretary too had made up his mind, in favour of the bid, so how could he have thought it proper to take on that decision? Of course he could take advice, but the decision as to whether he should do it, and could do it fairly, was a matter for him and him alone.
	The Secretary of State took on the responsibility, and assured the House that he would be acting in a quasi-judicial role, like a judge, and that he would be transparent, impartial and fair. However, is it not the case that James Murdoch was receiving information in advance about what the Secretary of State was going to do and what he was going to say—information that was given to only one side, which had not been given to those who were opposed to the bid, and before it was given to this House.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman think it acceptable that Murdoch knew not only about what he was going to do and say, but, crucially, what the regulator, Ofcom, had said to the Secretary of State on 10 January 2011 and what the bid’s opponents had said to the Secretary of State on 20 and 31 March 2011. Is he really going to suggest to this House that James Murdoch’s adviser, Fred Michel, knowing all this was just a coincidence? Can the Secretary of State explain how Fred Michel, in a series of e-mails beginning on 23 January, was in a position to tell Murdoch the full detail of a statement that the Secretary of State was not going to give to this House until two days later? Whatever interpretation is put on e-mails, there can be no doubt that Michel’s e-mail accurately and in detail described meetings that the Secretary of State had had, and accurately foretold what the Secretary of State was going to do. Either Michel was mystic Meg or he had been told.
	When it comes to the transparency that the Secretary of State promised, there appears to have been a great deal of transparency for Murdoch, but precious little for opponents of the bid or for this House. If, as suggested on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf in the media, he was negotiating with Murdoch, why did he not tell the opponents of the bid and why did he not tell the House? Will he tell us now whether he believed himself to have been negotiating? Is that what was going on?
	On 3 March, the Secretary of State told this House that he had published details of all the exchanges between his Department and News Corporation. In the light of all the information that we now know that Fred Michel had, does he still maintain that that is the case? His special adviser has admitted that his activities at times went too
	far, and he has resigned, but will the Secretary of State confirm that under paragraph 3.3 of the ministerial code, it is the Secretary of State himself who is responsible for the conduct of his special adviser?
	This was a controversial bid. The right hon. Gentleman could have refused to take it on, but he did not. He could have referred it to the Competition Commission, but he did not. His role was to be impartial, but he was not. His conduct should have been quasi-judicial, but it fell far, far short of that, and fell short of the standards required by his office. The reality is that he was not judging this bid; he was backing it, so he should resign.

Jeremy Hunt: I am hugely disappointed by the right and learned hon. Lady’s response today. She had the opportunity to rise above party politics and work towards a solution to a problem that has bedevilled British politics for many years; instead, she has chosen to jump on the political bandwagon. Let me remind her that the Labour party spent over a decade in power and did nothing other than cosy up to the press barons and their families. She speaks for a party whose Prime Minister, when in opposition, flew half-way round the world, in Rupert Murdoch’s words, to “make love” to him “like a scorpion”. [Interruption.] This is a party whose Prime Minister was godfather to Rupert Murdoch’s daughter and whose Prime Minister’s wife organised a sleepover at Chequers. [Interruption.] I will come on to deal with all the right hon. and learned Lady’s points.

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to calm down. I politely but explicitly suggest to the Secretary of State that in addressing these matters, he seeks to address the questions put to him and to address the matters for which he is responsible, which obviously does not include the conduct of other political parties.

Jeremy Hunt: I will happily do that, Mr Speaker, but I do think that Opposition Members need to show a degree of humility when they deal with these issues—[Interruption]—because if we are going to solve this problem, it is necessary for the whole House to work together and not to jump on bandwagons.
	Let me now deal with the specific points made by the right hon. and learned Lady. She said that I was backing the bid—that I had made up my mind. That is not true. Let me say this. First, when I was appointed to be responsible for the bid, my views about the bid, some of which had been made public, were explicitly reported to the Cabinet Secretary, who decided that it was appropriate for me to take responsibility for it in a quasi-judicial role, but—this is the crucial point: it is very important—the right hon. and learned Lady must understand that because I had expressed some sympathy for the bid when I was not responsible for it, I changed the process so that at every stage before I made a decision, I obtained the advice of independent regulators, which I carefully considered and which I followed. I put it to the right hon. and learned Lady that if I had been backing the bid, I would not have sought the advice of independent regulators who might well have opposed it.
	I made four decisions in this process, and each of those decisions was contrary to what News Corporation wanted. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members are making the very serious allegation that I was supporting this bid and not acting quasi-judicially, they must at least listen to the evidence of what happened.
	The first decision I made was that I was minded to refer the bid to the Competition Commission, which is precisely what James Murdoch did not want me to do. I said that I was minded to do it. I then had an obligation to consider undertakings in lieu of a reference to the Competition Commission, and I made my second decision, which was that I would not accept those undertakings until I had received and considered the advice of Ofcom and the OFT on whether they dealt with the plurality concerns. That was something about which James Murdoch was extremely angry. [Interruption.] I had a meeting which was minuted.
	The third decision that I made was to extend the period of consultation—again, at any stage I could have accepted those undertakings—and to insist again that Ofcom and the OFT must have full sight of the undertakings, that I would see their advice, and in practice I followed their advice after careful consideration.
	My final decision, at the very end of the process, was made at the time of the Milly Dowler revelations. At that stage, I wrote to Ofcom and asked it whether those allegations should have any impact on my decision with respect to accepting the undertakings, because I thought that there was a question mark over corporate governance procedures which might affect any decision to accept them.
	Those four decisions were contrary to what News Corporation wanted. The idea that I was backing the bid is laughable.
	The right hon. and learned Lady talked about the e-mails between Frederic Michel and me. In his evidence to the inquiry, Frederic Michel also said—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members should listen to the evidence that was presented yesterday. Frederic Michel said:
	“some of my emails… may incorrectly suggest to a reader that I had contact with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt, when in fact my contact was solely with Mr Hunt’s adviser”.
	[Interruption.] I accept, and my adviser accepts, that those communications overstepped the mark. However, I am telling the House today that all the evidence makes it absolutely clear that none of those conversations influenced the decisions that I made.
	Let me just say this. The right hon. and learned Lady’s party had 13 years in which to do something about this. During the last year of the last Labour Government, the Cabinet discussed the issue of press behaviour and decided to do nothing. In contrast, she faces a Prime Minister and Culture Secretary who set up the Leveson inquiry within two weeks of the Milly Dowler situation, who therefore have put in place a process that, while fully protecting freedom of expression—which is the foundation of our democracy—will oversee some of the most fundamental reforms of press practices in a generation, and who have shown more commitment to transparency and openness than her Government ever did.

John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend first confirm that, whatever his advisers may have said, the only advice that he took was from Ofcom, and that he followed it? Secondly, does he agree that usually in circumstances such as these the first thing the Opposition do is call for a judicial inquiry, and given that that is precisely what we have, is it not sensible to wait until it completes its work and not jump to conclusions?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and given that the Leader of the Opposition has previously said that he thinks it is right that the Leveson inquiry should take its course—that the most important thing is that it gets to the bottom of what happened, of what Labour did, of what the Conservatives did, and we reach a judgment about that—it is curious that he is now trying to pre-empt its conclusions.

Ben Bradshaw: Both the Culture Secretary and the Prime Minister have repeated again today that they always followed Ofcom advice. They did not. Ofcom thought this bid should be referred to the Competition Commission; so did the Business Secretary, so did the Labour Government. Why did the Culture Secretary change that policy?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the right hon. Gentleman was disappointed yesterday, as he was looking for a smoking gun that showed that the process had not been properly pursued. The very first decision I took was to say I was minded to refer this bid. That is the proper process. If a Minister wants to refer a bid to the Competition Commission, the proper process is to tell the interested party that they are minded to do so, and it then has the opportunity to come back with undertakings, which the Minister has a duty to consider. That is the process set up by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government in the Enterprise Act 2002, and that is what I was doing.

Don Foster: The Prime Minister reminded us earlier today that for far too long Conservative and Labour politicians and their advisers have been cosying up to the media, and in particular to the Murdoch empire. In light of that and of the Secretary of State’s own experiences, does he agree that it is inappropriate for a politician to make decisions on media ownership when, however hard they seek to be impartial, politicians will be perceived to be under pressure to meet the wishes of the media barons? Should not these decisions be made openly and independently by the appropriate regulator?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He knows that I have said that I think this is an issue that needs to be considered, because the perception of impartiality is as important as the impartiality itself. We wait with interest to hear what Lord Justice Leveson says.

Tom Watson: Is the Secretary of State seriously trying to convince the nation that these incriminating e-mails and texts are all the work of a single rogue adviser?

Jeremy Hunt: I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to be very careful about declaring someone guilty before there has been due process. He described—[Interruption.] He accepts—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. The answer must be heard.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman used the word “incriminating.” I said he overstepped the mark, and I think it is very important in situations such as this that due process is followed. The hon. Gentleman wanted an inquiry. He has got an inquiry. Let us listen to the results of that inquiry.

Mark Reckless: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what these e-mails show is the shocking extent to which lobbyists exaggerate, embellish and invent the access and influence they actually have?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are countless examples in those e-mails of things that simply did not happen—of meetings that were alleged to have taken place not just with me, but with members of my Department, but that simply did not happen. It is very important that we hear all the evidence so that we can get to the bottom of what is truth and what is fiction.

Chris Bryant: Every councillor in the land knows what “quasi-judicial” means. They know that it means that if they are on the planning committee, they cannot tip the wink to anybody on one side or the other, and that they have to be cleaner than clean, whiter than white. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both asserted for the last two years that they had no inappropriate conversations with that woman, Rebekah Brooks, and that every single one of their meetings has been published. May I just give this one final chance to the Prime Minister to come clean on all the meetings, because I think he might find things are going to get very difficult for him later on today?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me say this: the Prime Minister had no inappropriate conversations, because he was not responsible for this decision.

Duncan Hames: We have heard what the Culture Secretary has to say about his own conduct, and I believe him. As for what on earth his office was up to, I hope Lord Justice Leveson gets to the bottom of that. Does the Secretary of State still think that Lord Leveson should be reporting to the Culture Secretary, or should he now report directly to the Prime Minister instead?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect, Lord Justice Leveson is reporting to me and the Home Secretary on the express wishes of the Prime Minister. The most important point is that what he reports is totally independent, and it is.

Pete Wishart: Some 6,800 people are employed by BSkyB in Scotland. They will have been watching the events of the past 24 hours with increasing concern and alarm. What message has the Secretary of State got for them today?

Jeremy Hunt: We want to have a thriving media industry, and I believe that the great strength of our media industry in this country is that we have a strong BBC and strong competition to the BBC. Those employees play a good part in that, and we want to see all companies in this sector thrive.

Richard Graham: We have heard today that there are, indeed, many cases in political history of lobbyists with more of Walter Mitty than the truth to their claims. Perhaps the Secretary of State can help the House today. Fred Michel claimed he had 54 separate conversations with the Secretary of State; will my right hon. Friend confirm how many conversations he did have?

Jeremy Hunt: The answer is zero.

Dennis Skinner: The Culture Secretary’s adviser has now lost his job. Does that not prove the theory that when posh boys are in trouble, they sack the servants? Why doesn’t the Secretary of State do the decent thing: tell dodgy Dave and Gideon, and get out and resign?

Jeremy Hunt: Adam Smith’s resignation is a matter of huge regret to me. I believe him to be a person of integrity and decency, but my responsibility to this House is to the integrity of this process—the objectivity and impartiality with which this process was conducted—and I believe I have presented evidence to the House that demonstrates that I behaved in a judiciously impartial way throughout.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Whatever strong views Members hold on this subject—as on many others—let me just remind them of the importance, as “Erskine May” has exhorted us, of moderation in the use of language in this House.

Jake Berry: Did the Secretary of State write on his website that he was a cheerleader for the Murdochs?

Jeremy Hunt: No, I did not. What I had on my website was an article from Broadcast magazine in which it wrote that, and I hope the evidence I have been able to present this morning shows that that was not the case.

Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was handling this bid, why did the Culture Secretary offer to help Murdoch to influence the process?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that anyone who is responsible for any sector, be it the aerospace sector, the chemicals sector or the automobile sector, has to talk to all the people involved in that industry. It is my job to talk to the BBC, to ITV, to Sky and to newspaper proprietors, because I want that industry to be successful. This bid did have some implications for media policy, so it was perfectly proper for me to be apprised of those. What was not right was for me to be involved in the decision-making process, and I was not while it was the responsibility of the Business Secretary.

Nadhim Zahawi: Does the Secretary of State recognise the conversations attributed to him by Fred Michel?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not. Throughout the bid process, when I got responsibility for it, the contact that I had with Fred Michel was only at official meetings that were minuted with other people present. The fact is that there is a whole pile of e-mails—54 in total—in which he talks about having contact with me, but that simply did not happen.

Jack Dromey: Is the Secretary of State saying that Lord Leveson should report to him, about him?

Jeremy Hunt: I want Lord Leveson to report absolutely everything he thinks, without fear or favour, including his opinion on the integrity of my conduct.

Sajid Javid: May I thank the Culture Secretary, a man I know to be of the utmost integrity and honesty, for his statement? The previous Government knew of phone hacking and illegal media practices for years but failed to take any action. May I ask the Culture Secretary to contrast his action with their inaction?

Jeremy Hunt: In 13 years, there were two Information Commissioner reports, one Select Committee report and two people were sent to prison, yet the Labour party did absolutely nothing. That is why it is totally inappropriate for Labour to be suggesting that this is somehow a Government problem. It is an issue that affects the whole political process, which is why we need to be working together to sort it out.

Paul Farrelly: The Secretary of State will appreciate that one of the main concerns about the fallout from the phone hacking affair is how widely News International’s tentacles reached into the police and into government. BSkyB launched its bid in June 2010 and Andy Coulson resigned in January 2011, so, irrespective of when the Secretary of State took responsibility for the bid, will he tell the House whether Mr Coulson had any communications with him or with DCMS advisers, in any shape or form, about News Corp’s interest in BSkyB while Mr Coulson was still the Prime Minister’s official spokesman?

Jeremy Hunt: I had no communication or consultation with Mr Coulson about this bid when I was responsible for it.

Therese Coffey: I, too, have seen my right hon. Friend serve this House with great integrity. Could he clarify the role that the independent regulators, the Office of Fair Trading and Ofcom, played in this process?

Jeremy Hunt: My reason for involving the OFT and Ofcom in this process to a much greater extent than I was required to do under the Enterprise Act 2002 was precisely that I wanted to address the concerns that Members of this House and the public might have about my prejudging this issue. At every stage—I took four major decisions, each of which was not the decision that News Corp wanted—and on every ruling that I made, I carefully considered that independent advice, and after considering it, I followed it.

Tony Lloyd: The Culture Secretary did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). Will he be very precise and tell the House now, because this is important evidence, whether he knew of the exchanges between his special adviser and Mr Michel? Did he know of the contents of those exchanges?

Jeremy Hunt: That information—it is an important question—was set out in a statement made by Adam Smith when he resigned.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us calm down. Let us hear the answer.

Jeremy Hunt: I knew about his contact—that was authorised. He was authorised to be the point of contact between my Department and News Corporation. What I did not know was the communications themselves—the first time I saw them was yesterday. Nor did I know the volume of those communications or their tone

Alun Cairns: Will the Secretary of State explain how referring the BSkyB deal to the Competition Commission makes him a cheerleader for the Murdoch empire?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes the most important point in this whole process. If one looks at the evidence of the decisions that I actually made, one finds that it is clear that at every stage I actually made the decision that News Corporation did not want. That includes the final decision, which was to ask whether I should take account of the Milly Dowler revelations, which was what precipitated the collapse of the entire bid.

Dave Watts: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State did not need to speak to Murdoch because his right-hand man was feeding Murdoch all the information he needed?

Jeremy Hunt: Those conversations—this is why I am telling the House this today—were inappropriate, but they did not affect my decision. The evidence for that is in the decisions that I actually took, which were four decisions that James Murdoch did not want.

Karen Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what measures he put in place in this process, over and above what was necessary, to ensure that the process was fair, transparent and open?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. The most important thing was that when James Murdoch offered undertakings in lieu of a referral to the Competition Commission, which it is his right to do so and my duty to consider, instead of accepting those undertakings, which I was legally completely entitled to do, I said that I would not do so until I had been given proper advice by Ofcom and the OFT as to whether it would be appropriate to do so. When I got that advice, I considered it carefully and I followed it. That is not required by the law, but I chose to do that because of my commitment to the integrity of the process.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Why was the special adviser the nominated person in the Department? If this was so important, as the Secretary of State is saying, why was his special adviser the nominated person?

Jeremy Hunt: His role was agreed by the permanent secretary, but he was not the only person; we had contacts on all sorts of levels—[Interruption.] Let me explain
	this to the House. When complex undertakings are involved in a huge merger, the process is very complex and there are, inevitably, a range of contacts. As I say, I have tried to be as transparent as possible in all those contacts. I think that, in this particular case, the contacts overstepped the mark, which is why, regrettably, Adam Smith has decided to resign. But let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that Adam Smith, in his statement, said:
	“While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BSkyB bid process, the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State.”

Sam Gyimah: The Secretary of State is a fellow Surrey MP whom I have grown to respect as a model professional. He knew that the BSkyB deal was controversial when the issue was moved to his Department. Will he explain what measures he took to ensure that the bid process was fair, transparent and open?

Jeremy Hunt: I have talked at length about the role of independent regulators, but let me just make the following response to my hon. Friend: one of the points about getting that independent advice from Ofcom and the OFT was that I published what they advised me to do before I made my decision, so that when I announced my decision the whole country could see whether I had acted in accordance with independent advice, which I did at every stage. That is why this House and the country can be reassured that this extremely difficult bid was conducted with scrupulous impartiality.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State referred in his statement to the “volume and tone” of the communications of his adviser not being appropriate. Does the Secretary of State accept that either he followed due process or he did not? If he followed due process, he should be here today fighting in defence of his innocence. If he is guilty, or if he feels that he did not follow due process, there should be due humility. Why is he doing neither?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, due process in this situation means that I should take my decision objectively and impartially, setting aside my own prejudices. That is exactly what I did.

Anna Soubry: Will the Secretary of State assure people in my constituency and throughout the country that at all times in this process he acted with impartiality and integrity?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely did and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that, but we are very keen in all these processes to learn the lesson that the appearance of impartiality is also very important. That is why today the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to write to all Departments to clarify the rigorous procedures that Departments should have in place for handling all cases of a quasi-judicial nature and said that it is vital that in dealing with these cases all contacts by Ministers, officials and special advisers are carefully controlled and properly recorded so that the independence, integrity and impartiality of the process are upheld and, just as important, seen to be upheld.

Jamie Reed: In the past 40 minutes I have watched the Prime Minister give the Secretary of State answers to the questions that he is being asked. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that the next great scandal in British politics is lobbying?

Jeremy Hunt: I think that forewarned is forearmed. In this process, we have seen the role of one corporate affairs adviser, and that is why this Government are conducting a review at the moment to consider the role of lobbyists and to ensure that we have proper transparency in the entire process.

Iain Stewart: Will the Secretary of State comment on the allegation that he went to see “Swan Lake” five days after reportedly speaking to Fred Michel?

Jeremy Hunt: Just one of the slightly curious e-mails that Fred Michel sent suggested that he had called me just before I went to see “Swan Lake”; I actually went to see it five days later. That is why I think it is very important that we hear all the evidence before making a judgment on the basis of these e-mails.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State said yesterday and has repeated in his statement today that he has written to Lord Justice Leveson asking to accelerate when he gives his evidence. Given that others were implicated in yesterday’s revelations, including Alex Salmond in Scotland, is it not now incumbent on them to do likewise so that they can give evidence on oath to clear up these issues?

Jeremy Hunt: There are questions for politicians of all parties to answer in this process. Obviously, we have an independent judicial review and it is for Lord Justice Leveson to decide the timings, but it is very important that all parties engage constructively in this process, because—and these are the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on “The Andrew Marr Show”—this is an opportunity to solve a problem that has bedevilled politics for a very long time. That is why constructive engagement with this process, not jumping on bandwagons, is the way forward.

David Rutley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that the process he describes was authorised and approved not just by the Cabinet Secretary but by the permanent secretary at the DCMS?

Jeremy Hunt: I can confirm that the permanent secretary was closely involved in this very important decision at every stage of the process. In particular, he gave me strong advice about how to ensure that the process was handled objectively and fairly and was seen to be handled objectively and fairly.

Kevin Brennan: May I remind the Secretary of State that on 20 January 2011 that I, as a former Minister with responsibility for competition policy, advised him in this House to hand over the decision to somebody else because of his own previous role with BSkyB and the Murdochs? Are not the facts that he did not do that then and that he used Adam Smith as his invisible hand two monumental errors of judgment?

Jeremy Hunt: If I used Adam Smith as my invisible hand, why did I take four decisions that went completely against what News Corporation wanted? This was a quasi-judicial process, which I took enormous trouble to ensure was performed objectively and fairly. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the House many times the steps that I took to do that.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that Fred Michel’s view that the Business Secretary “saw no problem with the bid” demonstrates the fantasy world that that man appears to be living in?

Jeremy Hunt: The evidence would certainly suggest that that was also an exaggeration. That is why we must hear all the evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry from all sides and allow Lord Justice Leveson, who is truly independent in this process and has no political bandwagon to jump on, to come to his considered conclusions.

Tom Harris: In my experience, Secretaries of State speak more to their political advisers than they do to their Ministers or, indeed, to members of their own families. The House is being invited to believe either that the relationship between the Secretary of State and Adam Smith was so dysfunctional that the Secretary of State was unaware of the extent and nature of the communication between Adam Smith and News Corp or that it was a good relationship, in which case the Secretary of State must, as the code of conduct states, take full responsibility for the conduct of his political adviser.

Jeremy Hunt: I point the hon. Gentleman to what Adam Smith said this morning. He said that
	“the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State.”

Brandon Lewis: The Secretary of State’s integrity is highlighted by the meticulous way he went through the process, outlined at the time and now, taking independent advice. As we have heard today, that, together with the gap between some of the evidence that we have heard over the past 24 hours and reality, surely highlights why we should do as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday and wait for the inquiry to finish and listen to what Lord Leveson has to say.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a huge opportunity to get things right. We have heard evidence that clearly has some flaws in it, and anyone looking at it sensibly and objectively would say that we need to hear all the evidence and not jump to conclusions.

Frank Roy: Will the Secretary of State publish all communications between his office and that of Alex Salmond in relation to the takeover bid?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I am happy to identify all communications with Alex Salmond’s office, if we have not already published them. I believe that we published all communications relating to this bid, but I will look into that.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and for the manner in which he is answering questions. The only thing that I think affects Parliament is the allegation by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that a statement to Parliament was leaked in advance. Will the Secretary of State clear that up and say that it is absolutely untrue?

Jeremy Hunt: There are allegations in an e-mail that that did not happen, and I am unable to say to the House today what the truth or otherwise was of the communiqué of the account of a conversation made by Fred Michel, which we know in other instances contained a number of exaggerations. But that is exactly why we have Lord Justice Leveson looking into the whole matter. He is independent—a High Court judge—and will get to the bottom of it.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State has said that he did not know the content of the communications between his special adviser and BSkyB, but he did know that they were happening and he assured the House that he would publish all the communications between his Department and BSkyB. Why were those communications, which he did know of—even though he says he did not know their content—not included? After the meeting on 23 December at which we now know the Prime Minister discussed the bid, did the Prime Minister act in a transparent manner by communicating on 23 December or thereafter what he had said to the Department either in person to the Secretary of State or through his officials or advisers?

Jeremy Hunt: The Prime Minister did not communicate with me any conversations he had had because he was not responsible for this bid. I was solely responsible for the bid. I did not know the content of the communications until yesterday when I saw them, nor did I know their volume. I knew that Adam Smith was authorised to be one of a number of contact points within my Department, but having seen those communications it is clear that the volume and content was inappropriate. What is significant for this bid is that they did not in any way at all affect my decisions. The evidence for that is very simple: the decisions I took were not the decisions that News Corporation wanted.

Michael Ellis: The Secretary of State is a man of honour and substance. I have just learnt that Rupert Murdoch has just told the Leveson inquiry that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), telephoned him and told him that he had “declared war” on him when he learned that The Sun newspaper had switched sides to the Conservatives. Does the Secretary of State think that the Opposition are using this as a self-serving opportunity to bash News International?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes.

Geraint Davies: Given the intimate relationship between any special adviser and their Secretary of State, is the right hon. Gentleman seriously contending that he did not know the content and the volume of what was transmitted? Why did he not release all the content when he promised to do so?

Jeremy Hunt: I did not know the volume and content of those text messages until yesterday. I have said that. My former special adviser has said that he had those communications without authorisation from me, but they are now published and that is why we have taken the action we have.

David Burrowes: I do not know Mr Michel, but I do know that the Secretary of State is a man of integrity and honesty. Will he make it crystal clear whether he recognises any of the conversations that have been attributed to him in Mr Michel’s e-mails?

Jeremy Hunt: None whatsoever, and indeed Mr Michel has acknowledged that in the 54 e-mails in which he refers to conversations with me, he in fact did not have any conversations at all.

Nick Smith: During this process, why did the Secretary of State not manage his special adviser properly, to ensure his office acted with integrity?

Jeremy Hunt: It is a matter of great regret to me that what happened happened, but if I may say so, I think the Labour party also has some lessons to learn about managing special advisers when it was in office.

Stephen Phillips: “Sentence first—verdict afterwards” may well be a principle that is sufficient in Alice in Wonderland, but it is not the principle of English law, it is not the principle of public life and it is certainly not a principle that ought to be observed in this House. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the opportunism that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) today demonstrates contempt for due process—the precise form of contempt of which he is himself accused?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. Let me remind him of what Lord Justice Leveson said this morning. He said, “I do not seek to constrain Parliament, but it seems to me that the better course is to allow this inquiry to proceed.”

Derek Twigg: It seems strange that the Secretary of State brings a special adviser into the centre of Government on a very commercially difficult contract or situation, and does not know what he is doing. But may I ask the Secretary of State a very simple question: why did the permanent secretary decide that the contact point would be a special adviser and not a civil servant?

Jeremy Hunt: Adam Smith was a part of the process that was authorised by the permanent secretary. But he was not the only point of contact—there were many, but he was one of the points of contact. You need to do that. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Well, we set up a process that was approved by the permanent secretary, and we also put in place many safeguards to make sure that my decisions were taken objectively, and seen to be taken objectively. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence whatsoever, looking at my actual decisions, that any of those conversations had any influence on them whatsoever.

Charlie Elphicke: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. Under this Government we have seen action on phone hacking, action with the Leveson inquiry, action on media regulation reform, and importantly, the Secretary of State tells us, no action in favour of the Murdoch empire in all the decisions that he made. Does he agree that that is in sharp contrast to all the actions of the previous Government which allowed the bent and dysfunctional media culture to be perpetuated in this country?

Jeremy Hunt: That is absolutely right, and that is why we are trying to draw a line under what happened under previous Governments of all colours, and trying to sort this problem out. I think it is time that Labour Members took a responsible attitude, because this is an opportunity to do something about this problem and we are trying to do so honestly and conscientiously.

Bill Esterson: The more that Government Back Benchers claim that the Secretary of State is a man of integrity, the less the public are likely to believe them. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) asked whose suggestion it was that a special adviser—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not impugn integrity. [Interruption.] Order. I do not require any assistance from any Government Back Bencher; I am perfectly capable of handling this matter myself and that is what I am doing, and they should be quiet. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) asked a question; it was answered. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) should now ask his question, but without the aspersions. Let us just have the question.

Bill Esterson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To answer the question, we need to know whose suggestion it was that Adam Smith should be the point of contact for News Corporation and why the key contact was a special adviser, not a civil servant.

Jeremy Hunt: We will look into all the processes—[Interruption.] We are very happy to learn lessons about the way this was structured. The hon. Gentleman can pick on one element of what happened, but he should not ignore the big picture. The big picture was that we put a huge lock in the process to make sure that my decisions were impartial and seen to be impartial, and that was the involvement of independent regulators—something that we did not have to do, but that we chose to do. That, in the end, is what demonstrates that my decisions were taken on the basis of objective evidence.

Robert Buckland: In its rush to judgment, is the Labour party not in danger of cocking a snook and undermining the Leveson process itself?

Jeremy Hunt: I do wish that Labour would allow these issues to be considered in a calm manner, because they are very, very difficult issues. We need to get the right solution. We are not saying that we got everything right in our party over the years; we are saying that there is a process of reform that needs to happen—very importantly, a process of reform that protects freedom of expression, which is the foundation of our democracy, and we want
	to work with all parties to sort this out. That is the way to deal with this issue—not the rank opportunism that I am afraid we have seen this morning.

Andy Slaughter: On the key issue of reference to the Competition Commission, the Secretary of State did not take independent advice, so his protestations that he did not always act in Mr Murdoch’s interests sound rather lame. Is he not in fact following his own office’s advice to Murdoch, which is to find some political cover for a decision that he had already taken?

Jeremy Hunt: I did take the independent advice. The independent advice was that this should be referred to the Competition Commission, and I immediately did as I am required to do in the legal process: I wrote to News Corporation and said, “I am minded to refer this to the Competition Commission.” It then has the right to offer undertakings in lieu, and I have a duty to consider those undertakings. I then wrote to the independent regulators again, to get their opinion before I took any further decisions. We have been scrupulously fair in this entire process. The proof of the pudding is that we took decisions that News Corporation did not like.

Robert Halfon: I believe that the success of the Olympics shows my right hon. Friend to be an outstanding Secretary of State. Does he agree that it is wrong to jump on the political bandwagon of resignation before knowing the full facts?

Jeremy Hunt: That is absolutely right, which is why I am looking forward to giving my full evidence to the Leveson inquiry, so that I can set the record straight on a number of points.

Robert Flello: The Secretary of State has had three opportunities—

Nadhim Zahawi: Get your hand out of your pocket!

Mr Speaker: Order. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is as excitable as he is good-natured. He is a very amiable fellow, but we do not need the hon. Gentleman’s advice on decorum. He should calm himself and take whatever tablets are required for the purpose.

Robert Flello: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has had three opportunities to answer the question about why Adam Smith was appointed to be the lead contact. Let me give him a fourth opportunity to stand up and give some information to the House, unlike last year, when he was supposed to release documents to the House.

Jeremy Hunt: All the roles in that process were agreed by the permanent secretary. I do not know what greater level of independence the hon. Gentleman wants for that decision, but let me tell him that we could not have been more transparent and more determined to make sure that the whole process was fair. We know from what happened yesterday that everything did not go right in the process. That is why, unfortunately, Adam Smith has chosen to resign—because some of his contacts
	were inappropriate. But the crucial question is whether any of that communication affected my decision, and it did not.

Simon Kirby: Should not the Opposition stop playing party politics and wait for the outcome of the inquiry?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely right.

Ian Lucas: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he requested that Adam Smith be the point of contact with News International?

Jeremy Hunt: I will not confirm it because I do not think it was a process that was—[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I am trying to answer the question, with the greatest respect to hon. Members. I do not think the process was me asking for certain people to play certain roles. It was a more fluid process than that, but the structures that we ended up with were ones of which the permanent secretary approved. That is the crucial point.

Stephen Mosley: The previous Government discussed in Cabinet whether to hold an inquiry into phone hacking. Why does the Secretary of State think they chose not to?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid the evidence is in black and white. They did not want to take on the Murdoch empire.

Diana Johnson: The ministerial code is very clear that the Minister is responsible for the actions of his special adviser. On that basis, was the Secretary of State negligent in not finding out what his special adviser was doing and controlling him? For the fifth time, did the Secretary of State ask for him to be appointed as the point man?

Jeremy Hunt: For the fifth time, the arrangements were approved by the permanent secretary. I do not think there was any process of me asking for certain people to play certain roles. As I said, I think it was a more fluid process than that, but the permanent secretary approved the processes that were happening.

Helen Grant: I, too, know the Secretary of State as a man of great integrity and honour. Does he agree that we ought to await the outcome of the Leveson inquiry before jumping to very dangerous conclusions?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When it comes to the relationship between the press and politicians, we are all partial to a certain extent. Some of us are in government and some of us in opposition. We all have different relationships. Because of my understanding of that, I tried to construct the process for the BSkyB bid to be as objective as possible. If we are to find a way forward, we need to ask the advice of someone objective, someone impartial, someone who is outside the political process. That is why I thought we had cross-party agreement that we would set up this very detailed process and let it run its course.

Anas Sarwar: It is right that the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House today. Sadly, our First Minister has not shown the same respect to the Scottish Parliament or to Scotland. Given the revelations yesterday and the revelations coming out of the First Minister’s office today, is it not right that Alex Salmond gives evidence as soon as possible to the Leveson inquiry and so does his special adviser, Kevin Pringle?

Jeremy Hunt: That is obviously a matter for the First Minister for Scotland, but all politicians need to be open and transparent, and all politicians need to show humility in dealing with this problem.

Jason McCartney: Why did the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—I would never refer to him in an ungracious and ungentlemanly way as “dodgy Gordon”—never once raise the issue of phone hacking with Rupert Murdoch?

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just waiting to see what part of the question engaged the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but I am afraid the answer was none of it.

Gavin Barwell: I have a high regard for the work that the Secretary of State has done, particularly in relation to the Olympics, which are coming to our great city in a few weeks. On the specific issue of the statement that he has given, can he tell the House when he hopes to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry? It is in his interest and in the interest of us all that we hear his full evidence as soon as possible.

Jeremy Hunt: I have written to Lord Leveson to say that I would like to give my evidence as soon as possible. At present it is scheduled to be towards the end of May, but it is a matter for Lord Leveson and I will respect everything he says.

Ian Murray: According to the e-mail trail that was released yesterday, a day after Alex Salmond asked for help to smooth the way for The Sun to support the Scottish National party, News Corporation knew about a phone call scheduled between Alex Salmond and the Culture Secretary to lobby on behalf of the BSkyB bid. Who set up that call and how did News Corporation know about it?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not know the answer to that question, but I will happily try to find out for the hon. Gentleman.

Ben Wallace: Does my right hon. Friend share my curiosity as to why it was the deputy leader of the Labour party who chose to respond to his statement today, rather than the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), the shadow Secretary of State? Could it—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question that is completely irrelevant to the terms of the statement. [Interruption.] It is simply not relevant. The hon. Gentleman should go and do his homework.

Fiona O'Donnell: One of the more bizarre revelations has been the taste in classical music and ballet of the Secretary of State. I believe we may just have witnessed his swan-song. Why, in response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), did he say that he had no locus to intervene when the Business Secretary was dealing with the matter, yet today he told us that he did offer to help? Which is it?

Jeremy Hunt: I made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business. However, it is my responsibility to understand what is going on in the media industry and the impact of this very important sector, which employs thousands of people. That is why I was interested to find out what was going on.

Mr Speaker: Order. For the benefit not of the House, but of those who are listening to and interested in our proceedings, I make the factual observation that a request for a statement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport very properly comes from the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, rather than from the shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

Sheila Gilmore: The very many people throughout the country who wrote to us when the responsibility for the decision was transferred to the Secretary of State will now feel that they were absolutely right and the Government were absolutely wrong. Can the Secretary of State explain why he is such a poor manager of his staff that he did not know what messages were going out under the authority of the special permission to communicate?

Jeremy Hunt: I manage my staff closely but I do not know every—[Interruption.] Excuse me. I—

Mr Speaker: Order. The proceedings are becoming rather rowdy. [Interruption.] Order. The Secretary of State’s answers must be heard with proper courtesy.

Jeremy Hunt: I do not know every single text message and e-mail that every single person in my Department sends. When I found out yesterday about the text messages that were sent, it was a matter of profound regret, which is why Adam Smith has taken the decision to resign today.

Mary Macleod: I believe that my right hon. Friend is a man of exceptional talent and integrity. Does he agree that in this House we should believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, and the right way to get an answer to this issue is through the Leveson inquiry?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When it comes to the behaviour of special advisers, we will take no lessons from the Opposition, having seen the infinitely worse behaviour of Damian McBride.

Jonathan Ashworth: Who suggested to the permanent secretary that Mr Smith should have the role of the go-between between the
	Department and News Corporation? Presumably a submission went to the permanent secretary and to the Secretary of State. Will he put that submission in the Library? Did he have any conversations with the permanent secretary about the appropriateness of a politically appointed special adviser having that role, and not a civil servant?

Jeremy Hunt: I have already answered that question and will take no lectures from the Labour party on how to manage special advisers, such as Damian McBride.

Gavin Williamson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he is a godfather to any of Mr Murdoch’s children and whether he agrees that the Labour party is showing a fair amount of brass neck?

Mr Speaker: Order. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and as a reminder to the Secretary of State, I point out that the statement the Secretary of State has offered the House is on the Leveson inquiry, not godparents. I think that we are clear on that.

Lilian Greenwood: Responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers rests with the Minister. Will he admit that he showed poor judgment and failed properly to manage Mr Smith in such a sensitive role?

Jeremy Hunt: I will take no lectures from the hon. Lady or anyone in the Labour party on the behaviour of special advisers. With the exception of this particular incident, the behaviour of my special adviser was exemplary.

George Freeman: The issues raised by the statement go to the heart of the important matter of media regulation. My constituents watching today will have seen a Minister with an unblemished record and the highest integrity carefully answering questions at the Dispatch Box without bravura in the spirit of transparency, in stark contrast to the hysterical, populist and demeaning behaviour of Labour Front Benchers, who have everything to be embarrassed about when it comes to their 13 years in office.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend. I am not quite sure what the question is, but let me say in response to an earlier question that I think I have comprehensively blown my chances of becoming a godparent to any Murdoch.

Paul Blomfield: Will the Secretary of State take this final opportunity to throw light on a critical question: what discussions did he have with his permanent secretary, and what advice did he offer, on the appointment of Adam Smith as the key contact?

Jeremy Hunt: I have told the House many times that I am aware of no discussions about specific roles in relation to what Adam Smith did, but what we ended up with was something that was sanctioned by the permanent secretary, which is about as independent as it gets.

Points of Order

Caroline Flint: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Government revealed that, despite rejecting nearly 30,000 families who applied for help with insulation through Warm Front—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if Members had the courtesy not to yell “Well done” when a point of order is being raised. People cannot complain about other people’s parliamentary manners on the one hand and then display a deficit on their own part on the other. Let us have a bit of order.

Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	This is very important for families across the country facing high energy bills. The Government revealed that, despite rejecting nearly 30,000 families who applied for help with insulation through Warm Front, there was an underspend of over £50 million last year. That comes on top of information I obtained last week showing that the energy companies will not meet the obligations Labour put on them to help households with energy efficiency. Given that the House might prorogue before Energy and Climate Change oral questions next Thursday, is there any indication that DECC Ministers plan to come to the House and explain how they have left Warm Front in such a shambles?

Mr Speaker: I have had no such indication. The right hon. Lady and I came into the House together in 1997 and, on the strength of knowing her for 15 years, I know that she is not inclined to let go of the bone.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last July the Prime Minister—I tried to warn him that I would raise this point of order; obviously he has now left the Chamber—published a list of all the meetings he had had with proprietors, editors and senior media executives between May 2010 and July 2011. It details only one meeting with Rupert Murdoch between May and July 2011. However, this afternoon Rupert Murdoch—this has been published by the Leveson inquiry—made it clear that there were meetings with the Prime Minister on 18 May, 25 May, 21 July, another on 21 July, and 22 July. My point of order is to ask you whether something that is laid in the Library of the House is just as much a matter of privilege as something that is said. In other words, if someone has tabled something in the Library that has misled the House, is that just as serious a matter as something said in the Chamber?

Mr Speaker: All Members, including the Prime Minister, are responsible for the accuracy of what they say to the House, and my implicit assumption is that that includes material lodged with the House. I am happy to take further advice on that, but there is an encouraging nod from the Clerk of the House from a sedentary position, and that provides me with succour. Beyond that, I simply say that Members should be careful what they say if—I emphasise if—they are not asking a question, but making an accusation. I say that simply for the general knowledge and enrichment of the House. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

Suicide (Prevention)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

William McCrea: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to set up a body to establish a public initiative for the prevention of suicide and self harm, to work with internet providers and others to reduce access to information on the internet and through other sources on methods of suicide and to develop a system of alerts and blocks for internet searches relating to suicide; and for connected purposes.
	After choosing suicide prevention as the subject of my ten-minute rule Bill, I was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) to the Public Initiative for the Prevention of Suicide and Self-harm, an organisation, based in Duncairn gardens in Belfast, that endeavours to work with those who have attempted suicide or are contemplating suicide and the loved ones of those who have done so. I have been deeply humbled by the dedication of this organisation and am happy to work with it, and indeed others like it, to do all I can to make a difference.
	It is true that when someone loses a loved one to depression and suicide, little can be said that will really comfort them. The pain of such a loss is unimaginable and the hurt is inexplicable, and only those who have walked that lonely road have any real understanding of the multiplicity of feelings that wreck the mind. Many families bereaved through suicide regret that they did not recognise the signs that something was wrong and, therefore, carry guilt for many years. To such people we must bring a message of hope. Although their intense feelings of grief can often be overwhelming and at times frightening, it is true that healing can yet come.
	The words that sum up the work of PIPS are “planting the seeds of hope”, and I trust that my Bill will play at least a small part in forwarding that worthy cause. The main thrust of the Bill is to gain help for those who feel suicidal and are vulnerable to the influence of others. Sadly, there is a great need for a change in public attitudes, and we as parliamentarians have a part to play in increasing awareness and understanding about suicide as a major public health problem. For too long this subject has been hidden and few desire to talk openly about it, as if silence on the subject will make it go away. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need openness and we must do everything we can to help prevent suicide and provide urgent help and hope for those who are contemplating it.
	Therefore, let us consider suicide and depression and its impact on the community. No matter what community someone says they come from, the pain and the question “Why?” will hurt just the same. Statistics show that people living in the most economically deprived areas are at a high risk of depression, self-harm and suicide. To take an example from Northern Ireland, the number of suicides has increased by more than 60% in north and west Belfast.
	Through its experience of working in the area of suicide prevention, PIPS has been able to identify some key themes associated with depression and suicide in our community. With the economic situation and the
	downturn, many people have experienced the pressure of mounting debts and the threat of bankruptcy or repossession. The recession has made that worse, with rising unemployment, and it is often those experiencing the highest levels of economic deprivation who are hit hardest. The credit crunch is also likely to affect young people from deprived backgrounds, as those who are academically unqualified will have greater difficulty than ever getting jobs in this new climate.
	Other issues that affect the emotional well-being of our young people are a lack of coping strategies and a lack of communication skills. Instead of spending time talking to family and friends, so much of the communication of our young people nowadays is non-verbal. There is texting, Facebook, chatrooms, e-mail and internet gaming instead of face-to-face communication, and that may leave some young people unable to express their feelings when they experience the difficult times that we all encounter.
	It is therefore important for us all to recognise the signs in our family and friends which could signal that something is deeply troubling them—that they may have a problem. People need to know that they are not on their own and where they can get help. We need to be more aware, to ask, “Are you okay? Do you want to talk?” and, of course, to be there for them when they desire to talk. I remember a young man at 2 o’clock in the morning in a hospital bed, saying to me, “I wanted to talk, but nobody wanted to listen.”
	The end of personal relationships and the breakdown of the family unit all take their toll in today’s society. Depression, suicide and self-harm are issues that do not discriminate; they affect everyone and touch whole families and entire communities. Suicide occurs in persons of all ages and backgrounds, but certain groups of people are at an increased risk of suicide attempts. These include persons with a psychiatric illness and those with a history of attempted suicide.
	Almost 1 million people worldwide die by suicide each year. That is more than in all the wars that take place throughout the world. Every year there can be anywhere from 10 million to 20 million suicide attempts, making suicide the 8th leading cause of death in males and the 16th leading cause of death in females. Those statistics are most prevalent among teenage boys aged 15 to 19 years old and men of 20 to 24 years of age. The devastation that it creates makes it a public health issue.
	In Northern Ireland last year, 59 people died on our roads, yet 313 people died by suicide. What if that had
	occurred on our roads? What would the professionals, the politicians and the general public have to say then? Suicide is not universally preventable, but it has been estimated that up to 80% of suicide victims display some warning signs or symptoms.
	Many turn to the internet to seek the comfort and guidance that they cannot find in their daily lives, but, although we must recognise the internet as an important resource in today’s society, we must be mindful of the fact that there are websites and chatrooms which encourage the vulnerable, the lonely and the depressed to consider taking their own lives.
	Many young people talk about “catching the bus” when they refer to seeking information on the internet about suicide. Organisations such as PIPS believe that, when certain terms are used to access information on suicide or self-harm, a “pop-up” should appear, informing the individual of the help and support that is available. A gatekeeper or guardian should be in place to monitor websites, and they should have the power to forward information to the appropriate authority with a view to having the website closed down. A complaints procedure should also be in place. I feel that as young people today are becoming more insular and relying more on computers to interact socially, that would make a significant contribution to lowering the levels of suicide and of self-harm which are sadly prevalent in today’s society.
	In conclusion, there is no single approach to suicide prevention. It requires a co-ordinated approach and a combined effort not only from public services and organisations, but from the private sector, voluntary groups and individuals. I believe, however, that this Bill can represent a significant step in addressing a complex issue that devastates too many families and claims too many young lives. The challenge is now before this House and this Government to do something in response to the call for action. For too long, too many have passed on by because the sorrow and grief of suicide has not touched their particular family. I have pleasure in presenting this Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Dr William McCrea, Ian Paisley, David Simpson, Lady Hermon, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Naomi Long, Kate Hoey, Fiona Bruce, Andrew Percy, Mark Pritchard, Paul Goggins and Mr Frank Field present the Bill.
	Dr William McCrea accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April and to be printed (Bill 333).

Civil Aviation Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 30 January 2012 (Civil Aviation Bill) (Programme) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on two days in accordance with the following provisions.
	Consideration
	3. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
	If the House agrees to the programme motion, consideration of the Bill will be taken today, and Third Reading will take place after the Queen’s Speech and last for up to two hours. The reason why Third Reading will take place on another day is that this is a carry-over Bill, and, if it is to be successfully carried over, this House must retain ownership of it until after the Queen’s Speech and pass it on to the other place in the next Session.
	The proposals in the Bill were subject to extensive consultation, and to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Transport, for which I am grateful. The Bill also received very thorough scrutiny in Committee, and I thank Members for that. I also welcome the extent of cross-party support for much of the Bill, and I am confident that today’s debate on Report will maintain the high standards and the well-informed contributions that we have seen in the House throughout the Bill’s consideration.
	Question put and agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

New Clause 2
	  
	Access for disabled and reduced mobility air passengers

‘(1) The Secretary of State and the CAA will produce an annual report on disabled and reduced mobility air transport passenger experiences of airport operation services and air transport services which must include evidence on the extent to which airport operations and air transport services are compliant with relevant legislation, regulations and codes of practice for the time being in force.’.—(Jim Fitzpatrick.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 8,page13,line17, clause 18, at end add—
	‘(3) A licence must include an obligation on licence holders to procure and publish annual surveys of passenger satisfaction, including but not limited to—
	(a) baggage handling services, and
	(b) arrangements for delays affecting air passengers.’.
	Amendment 9,page13,line17, at end add—
	‘(3) A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to develop passenger welfare plans.’.
	Amendment 10,page13,line17, at end add—
	‘(3) A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to provide support for stranded passengers at airports.’.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you still in the Chair. I think we can promise you a quieter ride than you experienced earlier in this session—[ Interruption. ] And it is a pleasure for me to welcome Mr Deputy Speaker to his place. It is nice to know that Mr Speaker left as a happy individual.
	New clause 2 and amendments 8, 9 and 10 relate to the passenger experience and to the licensing system. On the Minister’s words about the programme motion, I note the great consensus on the Bill. There are still a few areas of disagreement, but I am sure that the House will generally welcome the Bill; Opposition Members certainly do.
	New clause 2 deals especially with those with disabilities, and its provisions were ably spoken to in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). The Civil Aviation Authority’s briefing on Report was sent to us by its Government relations officer, Ms Sandra Webber, and it states:
	“The licence regime should minimise the distortions associated with regulatory intervention. In response to a request for advice from the Secretary of State, the CAA published an indicative licence to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of the Bill. It illustrates, for example, one possible approach whereby a licence could include provisions aimed at strengthening airports’ operational resilience to ensure they are much better prepared to avoid the passenger disruption previously experienced during severe weather.”
	We very much agree with that approach.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, as I have said, led in Committee on the provisions of new clause 2, and we heard a number of moving speeches by colleagues on both sides of the House, relating to the embarrassment, difficulties and indignity experienced at airports here and abroad by constituents with disabilities, and encouraging the Government to address those issues and to ensure that best practice is rolled out right across the piece.
	Amendment 8 states that a licence
	“must include an obligation on licence holders to procure and publish annual surveys of passenger satisfaction”
	on “baggage handling” and “arrangements for delays”. We included the words “but not limited to” because in Committee, the Minister rightly drew attention to the fact that the UK Border Agency is subject to the Home Office and would therefore have been outwith the scope of our original amendment. We have omitted that suggestion. However, we hope that the phrase
	“including but not limited to”
	will give licence holders the opportunity to collate the data that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said it would be appropriate for the CAA to publish on behalf of airports or for airports to publish on their own behalf because they would be of interest.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the long debate that we had in Committee. Does he agree that recent news stories about delays at Heathrow have only strengthened the argument that it would be in the airports’ interest to publish those data, so that passengers know whose fault the delays are?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I could not agree more. I will discuss previous experience, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, recent experience underscores the expectation that the Government, the authorities or the airports will have to deal with the experience of passenger delays. The horror stories that are starting to come out about passengers experiencing delays of some hours because of shortages of immigration staff and the article in The Daily Telegraph on Monday or Tuesday of this week in which the previous chief executive of UKBA offered some analysis of the problem underscore the fact that there is an important matter to be addressed.
	Amendment 9 is the generic proposal. It states:
	“A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to develop passenger welfare plans.”
	That is an all-encompassing proposal that we think would cover all the matters that passengers would expect airports and airlines to deal with, including stranded passengers, resilience, delays and all manner of difficulties that passengers might experience. Amendment 10 looks specifically at the position of stranded passengers and suggests that something should be done for them.

Graham Stringer: As ever and as was the case in Committee, I am following the logic of my hon. Friend’s contribution. Will he expand a little on why it should be the owners of airports who provide provision for stranded passengers and not the airlines, as has previously been established in law?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Amendment 9 states that it should be incumbent on the licence holder to “develop passenger welfare plans”. That does not necessarily mean that the licence holder has to be totally responsible for delivery. There should be engagement with the airlines and a collective approach to that matter. Obviously, the CAA and the Government should be involved in that. I was not narrowing down the responsibility in the way that I misled my hon. Friend to believe.
	Passenger welfare plans were a recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. In Committee, the Minister did not give a good reason why she does not believe that those plans should be included in the licences for airports. She said that the CAA will draw up the licences and that it will be a matter for that organisation. We do not think that that provision is strong enough. Given that the primary duty of the Bill is to the passenger, as we have discussed for some months, we believe that the development of passenger welfare plans would reinforce the focus on giving passengers the best experience possible at our airports. They have clearly not had that in previous winters.
	The Transport Committee also stated in its pre-legislative scrutiny:
	“Where possible, airport licences should be structured so that they address key areas of passenger dissatisfaction.”
	I do not need to repeat the statistics on the misery that has been experienced by passengers at difficult times over a number of years. The reports, particularly the Begg report, on what happened to passengers at Heathrow during the disruption of December 2010 make alarming reading, even if one looks only at the headlines. Nine and a half thousand people were sleeping in the terminal, passengers were seeking refuge in subways, a lorry carrying blankets for passengers had to turn back on the M25 because of traffic conditions and very few passengers were provided with water or refreshments. It was absolute chaos and confusion. I am not blaming anybody for that. It is matter of record and fact, and we all want to avoid it happening again.
	I anticipate that the Minister will refer us to clause 83 on the collection of information and data, which we discussed extensively in Committee. We accept that clause 83 is drawn widely enough to include the proposals in new clause 2 and amendments 8 and 10, because the airports could be responsible for providing the relevant data. However, given the experience of recent years, we believe that amendment 9 should be a basic licence requirement. The fact that the CAA has suggested that such a requirement could be incorporated and has included it in the example for the Heathrow licence suggests that it thinks that it will do that anyway. We think that the Government should make it a duty on the CAA to make passenger welfare plans a licence requirement.

Nigel Mills: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman accepts that clause 83 will apply to all airports and not just to the three that are likely to have a competition licence. Amendment 9 would not be of any use to a load of passengers who do not use Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I accept that point. I suggested in Committee that there should be a delineation of the differences between licensed airports, given that all airports
	have a licence of some description. Given that the most difficult passenger experiences of recent years have been at Heathrow, given that an indicative licence has been published for Heathrow and given that Heathrow is the market leader and our only hub airport, whatever Heathrow does will be examined by everybody else. If the CAA says that it expects Heathrow to do something, that might be adopted by other airports. We therefore do not think that it would be inappropriate to include this requirement in the licence, even if it applies only to Heathrow, because it would be copied as best practice by the other first-class airports around the country.
	We all want to ensure that there is a good passenger experience, especially for those with disabilities, as was discussed in Committee and as is outlined in new clause 2. We hope that the situation will be better as a result of the Bill and are confident that it will be. We congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. However, we think that it would be much better if, in addition to more and clearer data being published on the passenger experience, there was a simple licence requirement, as outlined in amendment 9. We will seek the view of the House on that if the Minister is not able to reassure us in the course of the debate.

Louise Ellman: This group of amendments draws attention to the importance of the passenger experience. The Transport Committee has looked at that theme a number of times over the years. Some improvements have been made, but there are still major questions, some of which are raised by the amendments.
	Overriding the specific points made by the amendments is the general question of who speaks for passengers. The previous organisation, the Air Transport Users Council airport consultative committee stopped being responsible for airing passengers’ views. It was suggested that Passenger Focus might take up that responsibility, but that did not materialise. When the Transport Committee questioned the CAA in our pre-legislative scrutiny, it told us that it was setting up a panel. When we asked what form the panel would take, how its members would be chosen and how it would operate, the answers were unclear. There is still a big question mark over whether there is effective representation for air passengers. Such representation does not seem to be enshrined in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend is making a very good point about who represents passengers. Does she agree that a flaw in the Bill is that it does not state not only who represents passengers but what the interests of passengers are? If that major flaw is not corrected today, I hope it will be corrected in the other place.

Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to some important points. I agree that the matter needs further thought, and I hope that the Minister can respond on it.
	The Select Committee’s work also drew attention to some problem areas in the allocation of responsibility for looking after passenger experiences. Key passenger concerns, particularly about passport and immigration
	issues, the time it takes people to get into the country and baggage handling, are not necessarily the responsibility of the airports, but they are, in reality, seen as responsible for them. We have heard examples recently of long queues, which are the responsibility of the UK Border Force, yet happen in the airport and are part of the air passenger’s experience. There do not seem to be any means of addressing that dual responsibility in the Bill, and that needs attention.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to the Select Committee’s earlier work on the implications of bad passenger experiences and the need for passenger welfare plans. The problems that air passengers experience at times of disruption during otherwise fairly normal periods are a long-running issue, and there has also been the near-breakdown of the service in situations such as very bad weather. We produced a report drawing attention to the matter and Ministers told us, or certainly implied, that the new licence conditions could contain requirements for passenger welfare plans to be put into practice, so that there would be clear responsibility for looking after passengers and giving them information in times of severe disruption. That does not seem to be happening in the Bill.
	I know that the Civil Aviation Authority, in laying down what I think it calls its indicative licence conditions, has said that passenger welfare issues are part of the licensing process. However, it is extremely unclear whether the conditions will be enforceable, how clear they will be and whether there is to be a further consultation period before any such conditions are laid down. That is another area of concern.
	All the points that I have made relate to the amendments, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The experience of passengers travelling by air is extremely important, and it is time that it became a focus of our attention.

Mark Lazarowicz: I wish to make a few comments, mainly about Edinburgh airport, which is obviously of particular interest to the residents of my constituency and has recently been purchased by a new operator following the earlier competition decisions. It has been taken over by the operator of Gatwick and London City airports among others.
	By and large, the passenger experience at Edinburgh airport is good. Most of the time, people can move fairly smoothly through the airport. Nevertheless, the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made apply at certain times of the day. My constituents frequently enter the UK at Heathrow or other airports in the south and then travel up to Edinburgh, and I know from personal experience about difficulties such as long queues at immigration and at security. Sometimes only one or two search points seem to be open even though eight or nine are available. We all experience that, and if the Bill can make the situation better, I will certainly welcome it.
	Such problems are not generally the experience at Edinburgh airport, but two aspects of passenger welfare standards need to be addressed there and elsewhere. The first is the issue of international flights in particular arriving late in the evening, when either the UKBA facility or the airport handling facility is apparently
	unable to cope with arrivals, particularly if planes are slightly delayed. As a result, I have had many complaints about people having had to wait for long periods before they could get off the plane or get past a locked door into the terminal building. I hope that the Bill will lead to an improved service for passengers, both in general and through the new standards that it will bring into effect.
	I also wish to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) about the welfare of stranded passengers. Anything that the airports can do for such passengers is welcome, but we all know either from direct experience or from experiences that have been recounted to us that the clear requirements in European legislation laid down on airlines in times of delay do not always seem to be operated with zealous enthusiasm. Passengers are not always given the support that is their right, and they are not always given compensation or told how to apply for it as they ought to be. I hope there will be a joined-up approach between the requirements that the Bill will make on airports, those that the amendments would make on them, and the requirements laid upon the airlines.

Pat Glass: I say at the outset that overall, this is a good Bill. It was drafted by the previous Government and taken forward by the current one, and I agree with much that is in it, but I still have some concerns about a number of issues, one of which is passenger welfare. I was a member of the Public Bill Committee and I raised the issue, but I did not receive sufficient assurances from the Minister that the Government were taking it seriously enough in the Bill.
	The Minister was unable to satisfy me on three key issues: first, whether airports will be required to take seriously enough the issue of passenger welfare when things go wrong; secondly, how the Government will routinely measure passenger satisfaction; and thirdly, how, having measured passenger satisfaction, they will make systemic changes to improve passengers’ experiences.
	The Transport Committee has recommended that the Government structure licences specifically to address key passenger satisfaction issues, including those relating to immigration and baggage handling. We are all familiar with the frustration, anger and stress that can be caused at airports when our luggage is lost or sent to a different airport, or when we are close to missing a flight because of a long queue at security. I was able to relate to the Public Bill Committee an occasion when I was held in a long queue at security. As the flight time got closer and closer, the anxiety that that caused me was made much worse because I was travelling alone. In the current economic situation, many families are having to prioritise what they can afford and consider whether their finances will stretch to an annual holiday. When they have saved hard all year for a well-earned break, they deserve better treatment and a better experience at our airports.
	The Government have cut 6,500 staff from the UK Border Agency, with 1,500 going from the UK Border Force, including more than 800 this year alone. We have heard the concerns that have been raised about the relaxation of security checks at our borders to avoid
	chaos at security. The chaos at the UKBA last summer meant the abandonment of checks on potentially hundreds of thousands of people, and we—least of all the Home Secretary—still do not know who came in through our borders. The relaxation of controls was a direct consequence of the reduction in the number of staff, and although that is primarily the Home Secretary’s responsibility, it has a significant negative impact on the passenger experience. The public rightly expect proper immigration controls to be in place, and passengers expect there to be sufficient staff to prevent massive delays at airports.

Theresa Villiers: I am, of course, very interested in matters related to the UKBF, but if the Opposition are so concerned about the issue, I am puzzled that they did not table an amendment on it.

Pat Glass: We did table amendments on the issue in Committee and considered it in some detail, and I was not happy with the responses that I received. That is why I am raising it again.

Theresa Villiers: If the hon. Lady was so unhappy with the response given in Committee, I am surprised that an amendment has not been tabled for consideration today.

Pat Glass: The proposal is part of this group of amendments. The Minister can say what she likes, but the passenger experience at our airports, which involves standing for hours in long queues because of cuts in UKBA staff, is simply not good enough.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition took the Minister’s advice that UKBA matters were for the Home Office, which is why we have decided to focus on passenger experience and welfare? As we have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, we would like to press those proposals to a Division if the Minister cannot reassure us. That is why UKBA has not been mentioned, and I am sure it is also why my hon. Friend did not table an amendment on UKBA.

Pat Glass: I said earlier that although UKBA cuts are primarily a matter for the Home Secretary, they have a significant negative impact on the passenger experience.
	I agree with the premise in the Bill that the passenger must be put at the heart of the regulatory regime. The Bill is right to give the CAA a primary duty on air transport users. The Bill is not specific enough on how that objective will be met, whereas the new clause and amendments would provide such specificity.
	Delays caused by UKBA checks, baggage handling and adverse weather cause huge passenger dissatisfaction and are made that much worse in times of crisis, whether that is caused by adverse weather conditions for which there should have better planning, or by volcanic ash—in the last such crisis, the needs of passengers hit an all-time low.
	An Office for National Statistics omnibus survey conducted in February 2010—it came hot on the heels of the crisis caused by adverse weather conditions at Heathrow—revealed that although most passengers are largely satisfied with their experience at airports, they have different views on different aspects, and were not equally satisfied with all aspects of service. The aspects
	of least satisfaction included information provided on bringing goods into the UK, on which there has been some improvement; information on destinations served by the nearest airport; baggage collection; and the cost of flights.
	The CAA discovered in its own survey of passenger satisfaction at airports that waiting at immigration was a concern. Fewer than 70% of passengers at London’s three major airports were satisfied with immigration services, and 8% of surveyed passengers waited more than 20 minutes. That impacts on our international reputation. I agree that the primary duty should be to promote the interests of passengers, but passengers are telling us that that does not always happen; that it happens better in some aspects of the service than in others; and that it can break down completely in times of crisis.
	Following the Transport Committee inquiry into the failure of both the Government and the industry adequately to prepare and respond to the severe winter conditions in December 2010, the absolutely appalling experience faced by many passengers, particularly at Heathrow, demonstrated the need for the sector significantly to up its game in relation to passenger welfare. The Bill fails to deliver on that.
	“Keeping the UK moving”, the excellent Transport Committee report on the impact on transport of the winter weather in 2010, recommended that airports
	“be required to develop passenger welfare plans and to provide”
	sufficient
	“support to stranded passengers during periods of disruption.”
	It is disappointing that the Government do not take the same view. Is the Bill not a perfect opportunity to ensure that airports provide assistance to passengers, even if only for elderly or disabled passengers, or for those travelling with small children, who could be stranded in airports for days at a time?
	The UK’s reputation was damaged by scenes of thousands of stranded passengers in airports over Christmas 2010, and equally damaged by the aftermath of the Icelandic volcano eruption. I was contacted by a number of constituents, as I know other hon. Members were, who were trying to get back from airlines the vast amounts of money that they had been forced to spend while stranded. Members of the Bill Committee will remember that I entertained them with my family’s experience. I was trying to help my elderly and disabled parents who were stranded in Barcelona. Their experience was perhaps extreme, but it was by no means unique, and the Government need to ensure that in future, passengers—disabled or not—do not experience such a shocking lack of care.
	In the light of such fiascos, the Bill is an opportunity to place obligations on airports to provide help for stranded passengers in similar situations, and to prevent a repeat of the past. The need for early, decisive action on whether to cancel services is particularly important. There has been some improvement in that respect. I was due to fly out of Heathrow a couple of months ago when planes were again stranded by snow. I got a text and then a phone call from the airport telling me that my flight was cancelled, which saved me trailing up to the airport and standing around all day. We should
	recognise that vast improvement. The value of knowing sooner rather than later whether a flight is cancelled should not be underestimated. It could mean that fewer passengers are forced to endure hours, and possibly days, in an airport. If they know earlier, they can make alternative, more comfortable arrangements.
	The problems also included the supply of de-icing and anti-icing products, and road salt. We should ensure better liaison over the treatment of the appropriate public road network between airports and local highways authorities. There has been some improvement on that, too. In 2010, my local authority properly prepared for the winter weather. It bought and arranged delivery of salt, but at the last minute, in an absolute panic, the Government effectively took salt that had been paid for by local authorities and transferred it to parts of the country that had failed to plan. However, we must accept that there has been some improvement on that situation.
	During the 2010 crisis, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), promised urgently to legislate to penalise airport owners for bad service, but passengers are still being left without the added protection such reforms should have brought. Airlines and airports are quick enough to take passengers’ money, but much less keen to step up and help in times of crisis. Damage has been done to our international reputation and to the needs of the air-travelling public, whether they are disabled or not, and it is time for the Government to step in and put passengers first.

Jim Shannon: I want to make just a couple of comments. I congratulate the Minister and the shadow Minister on how well the Bill Committee was run. All members of the Committee contributed to the Bill and the best way forward.
	As an elected representative for Strangford in Northern Ireland, I have been contacted by three airports in Northern Ireland—Belfast City, Belfast International, and Londonderry—because they want to ensure that the current regulatory system is efficient. Some perceive inefficiency and say that the regulation is burdensome, and that the system clearly needs reform. In some ways, the Bill Committee tried to ensure that we can provide an efficient, flexible system that works well. If we have done so, it is good news.
	New clause 2 refers to an
	“annual report on disabled and reduced mobility air transport passenger experiences”.
	Many hon. Members have been contacted by constituents —this point was made in Committee—who have particular and specific, but not unique, personal medical and health circumstances. They might have had an operation and now carry a colostomy bag, or they might have had metal inserted into their body to protect their spine or shin. As a result of wars all over the world, many people have lost limbs, and many soldiers and civilians have prosthetic limbs, yet when it comes to improving their experience in airports, we find that the process seems to be inflexible. I have heard complaints on that.
	The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on such problems, so the matter has been talked about before. I would like to know how we can
	improve the experience of airports for those people, who have made it clear to me as an elected representative—I suspect they have made it clear to other hon. Members—that their experience was not the best and asked how we can make it better. I believe that we can. I know that the Minister will assure us on that matter, and I look forward to her comments.
	Amendments 9 and 10 relate to the welfare plans and support for stranded passengers at airports. The shadow Minister mentioned the experience when an airplane does not go, passengers have to take a bus from A to B and they have no water and so on. A great many people have told me how their holiday turned out to be the opposite of what it should have been. There is a programme on Sky television about holiday nightmares. I do not know whether many people watch it. Those who watch television after midnight probably do. There have been many examples of such problems occurring. For ordinary people, our holiday is our chance to get away for two weeks, wherever it might be across the planet. It is an escape from the humdrum of life. But suddenly people find themselves catapulted into airport queues, the flight is an hour late and so on.
	That reminds me of the holiday package scheme. That is also part of the experience. People have told me that when they booked their holiday they felt it looked like a horse and smelt like a horse—if I may use that terminology—but that it turned out to be donkey. That might not be the best illustration in the world for air travel, but it explains, I hope, exactly where the issues lie. I am therefore seeking assurances from the Minister on traveller welfare and the necessary passenger commitment to ensure that travelling through airports is an experience people can enjoy as part of their holiday. I always think, when I go on holiday—I go once a year for two weeks—that my holiday starts when I leave the house, and it is the same for many others. The experience at the airport is part of the holiday, which is why we need some assurances.

Nigel Mills: I had not planned to speak to the new clause and amendments, but I was tempted by the exchange on border services to relive some of our Committee debates.
	I cannot support the shadow Minister’s amendments. I am not convinced that the licence dealing with the economic regulation of airports is the right place to impose conditions that ought to apply to every airport. I would hope that all airports operating in the UK would recognise that all these extremely sensible and worthy things were natural obligations that they ought to fulfil anyway, and that we should not need to legislate for them. If we do, though, we should legislate for them all, not just the one, two or three airports that happen to be economically regulated.
	Clause 18, to which the amendments relate, allows—possibly even instructs—the Civil Aviation Authority to include conditions it thinks
	“necessary or expedient having regard to the risk that the holder of the licence may engage in conduct that amounts to an abuse of…market power”.
	If it was felt that an airport such as Heathrow was giving a particularly poor passenger welfare service because it could away get with it—because it has market
	power and people have to fly from there on certain routes—it would be perfectly fair for the CAA, recognising that risk, to impose conditions. We would all want the CAA to do that, if it saw those risks to any part of the passenger experience.
	I want to touch on the experience of getting through passport control. Having been through four UK airports this week on Northern Ireland Select Committee duties, I was obviously spared having to go through passport control both in Northern Ireland and at Gatwick on Monday evening, so I have no recent miserable experiences to recount. However, this issue is becoming a reputational risk with people arriving in the UK on holiday or business, so we need to get it right. There is no particular magic to getting it right. The airports and the UK Border Force all have a role to play. As was said, it is a matter of getting resourcing to match the volume of passengers and flights, knowing when passengers are coming from jurisdictions that could make border control more complicated, and making available all the facilities that the Border Force needs, such as rooms near the passport checking station and so on. Airports could invest in electronic scanning devices as well. We need to encourage airports and UKBF to work together pragmatically to make the service the best it can be.
	The Minister asked why no amendments were tabled on this for Report stage. I moved one in Committee, of course, and I was tempted to bring it back on Report to get the wider view of the House, but I was not sure that the Whips would welcome my being tempted down that line. Nevertheless, we need to find a way of getting UKBF to recognise its responsibility and to publish all the data on the length of queues by airport so that passengers and airports can know what the situation is likely to be. When the transparent data are made available, all involved will have the motivation to get those queues as short as possible by making the most effective use of the resources available.

Julie Hilling: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). He said that he could not support the Opposition’s amendments because airports should be doing these things anyway. If they were, we would not need the amendments, but because they are not, the amendments are important. That is particularly so for UK plc, given that, so often, the first and last impressions that overseas visitors get of the UK is of the airport.

Nigel Mills: For clarification, my point was that all airports should be doing this but that the amendments would apply the measure to only three UK airports.

Julie Hilling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I absolutely agree that all airports should be doing it, but the Bill enables us at least to put the obligation on some; we would then hope that the others would follow. If airports want to attract business from passengers and other businesses, their standards need to be as high as those of the others. It is important, therefore, that we set down what we expect from our airports and airlines.
	As we heard, the Transport Select Committee undertook the inquiry, “Keeping the UK moving: The impact on transport of the winter weather in December 2010”—a very long title. That in-depth report looked into all
	elements of transport—not only aviation but the road network and how transport links together—and recommended that passenger welfare should be at the heart of airport operations. It also agreed with the recommendation of the Begg report that Heathrow and other airports should develop welfare plans for passengers during disruption. The report stated:
	“Passenger welfare should be at the heart of airport operations. We concur with the recommendation of the Begg report that Heathrow should develop a welfare plan for passengers during periods of disruption: other airports should do the same. It is unacceptable that such plans do not already exist. If airlines fail to meet their obligations to accommodate stranded passengers, airports should be prepared to step into the breach. We would support measures by which airport operators could reclaim the costs of providing support to stranded passengers from airlines which had not discharged their legal responsibilities and we recommend that the CAA investigate how this can be achieved.”
	The Government responded:
	“However, the legal responsibility to provide care and assistance to passengers remains that of airlines. It is important that any initiatives to bolster the provision of passenger welfare during periods of disruption, for instance through passenger welfare plans, do not create any uncertainty in this area.”
	The Committee welcomed the Bill, about which the Government response said:
	“The CAA would have a new primary duty that would put the interests of passengers unambiguously at the heart of the regulatory regime.”
	It is disappointing, then, that on Report we are still urging the Government to put in the Bill the obligation for airports to develop welfare plans.

Theresa Villiers: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady. Our concern is not about the amendments’ content but that we can trust the CAA to put these kinds of issues in the licence system. The best way to ensure effective regulation is to give the regulator the decision on exactly how to focus on passenger welfare. The hon. Lady can be confident that even if the amendments fall today, the CAA will ultimately put exactly this sort of thing in the licences, on which it will consult as soon as the Bill becomes law.

Julie Hilling: I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I have to say that I am not reassured, because if we believe that those things are fundamental, I do not see why we should not put them in the Bill. She reassures us that the regulator will ensure that those things are in place, but let us tell the regulator. Let us say, unambiguously and up front, that we expect those things to happen and that the regulator will ensure that, rather than allowing the regulator to make those decisions for itself.
	I want to talk, as others have, about what happened at Heathrow in the winter disruption of 2010. The point is worth reiterating, because the Begg report made alarming reading. Let us look only at the headlines: 9,500 people sleeping in the terminal; passengers seeking refuge in subways; a lorry carrying blankets for passengers having to turn back on the M25 because of the traffic conditions; very few passengers provided with water and refreshments; absolute chaos and confusion. As the Begg report found:
	“Confused and contradictory messages caused incorrect signals to go to airlines, to passengers, and from airlines to passengers”.
	Passengers were given laptops to try to rebook their flights—the laptops were around the terminal. That is fine for regular travellers and regular internet users—perhaps they could find their way around the system—but many passengers would clearly not have had the first clue about what to do. There seems to have been an absolute lack of care and concern for passengers at that point. Indeed, there was no contingency plan in place to ensure that those with medical conditions, who are more vulnerable—for instance, those with diabetes—had access to food, water and other things they needed. There must be a system in place and a channel of support for those who need medical support at times of disruption.
	It is true that we all get those messages on the television or radio: “Do not travel unless your journey is absolutely essential.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of us always believe that our journey is indeed absolutely essential. People set out in their cars or other modes of transport when, if they had stopped to think about it, they would not have done so. Airports face that difficulty in dealing with us—that even when it is snowing or there is thick fog, we believe that our flight is going to take off. Airports have to accommodate themselves to the fact that we are not always sensible. Living in a country that does not often have severe weather, we are perhaps more naive about when we should travel and when we should not. However, we also have to recognise that many of those travelling to airports set out the day before or when it is not apparent that there will be bad weather later. Again, we have to consider not only human nature, but the fact that people will set out before conditions worsen. That is particularly true when we think about volcanoes erupting and other things that can happen unexpectedly.
	Going back to the winter problems, particularly at Heathrow—I acknowledge that other airports dealt much better with the weather—it is unacceptable for passengers to have such an experience. It unacceptable not only for them, but for UK plc. Our airports are our gateway to the rest of the world. We need airports with first-world standards, not standards one would expect in a developing country.
	There did not seem to be a huge amount of improvement at Heathrow this year. perhaps I could be criticised for saying, on the one hand, that not enough information was given on previous occasions, but when there was a threat of snow, a quarter of the flights were cancelled. The report states that flights should be cancelled and information given in advance if such disruption is feared. Perhaps the Minister has better information than I do and will be able to respond, but four inches of snow were threatened—the threat was of snow being dumped, rather than falling long term, over days or hours. Considering that we are supposed to have had this great investment in snow clearing and other things to keep our airports moving, cancelling a quarter of the flights feels like a knee-jerk reaction.
	Yes, airlines are responsible for the treatment of passengers, but it is not good enough for different airports to have separate passenger welfare plans. A passenger needs to know what support they will get at any airport, because it is the airport, not the airline, that will be blamed if there are problems. Whether a passenger has booked with Virgin, British Airways or whoever, they will blame Heathrow, Manchester or Gatwick for
	their bad experience and lack of support, rather than the airline that should be providing that support. Airports clearly need the power and responsibility to have concerted passenger welfare plans, and the CAA needs the authority to ensure that that happens.

Theresa Villiers: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to echo the comments of the shadow Minister for aviation to the effect that our experience in the Chamber today shows something of a contrast. It shows the great strengths of this Parliament—that we can embrace both the aggressive exchanges that we heard earlier and the detailed and considered scrutiny of legislation that we are undertaking now.
	I also very much welcome the words of support that the shadow Minister has expressed—both today and throughout the scrutiny of the Bill—for the broad thrust of the framework put before the House. This is a Bill that started its life under the previous Administration, so although it is being put forward by a coalition consisting of Conservatives and Lib Dems, it owes much to our Labour predecessors. That degree of cross-party involvement has strengthened the Bill, as have the extensive consultation done by the previous Government and the further work with stakeholders done by the current Government.
	Before I deal with the amendments in detail, I want to make a general point about the passenger experience. I completely agree that a key aim of the Bill is to ensure that we improve the passenger experience at our regulated airports, because it is important both for passengers and for our economic competitiveness, the quality of our airports and making passengers the central priority of our regulated airports. That is essential. Although Opposition Members have expressed concern and called for changes in the Bill to reflect that, I hope they will agree that what is already in the Bill will be a significant overall improvement on the current system, which essentially leaves the CAA with few levers at its disposal in the five-yearly price control process. That process is important, but the Bill enables the regulator to opt for real-time regulation, so that it can intervene when passengers need it, in a flexible and targeted way, to address just the sort of issues that so many hon. Members have raised today. Although we may differ on the precise drafting of the Bill on some issues, I hope that we can uniformly agree that it will be a significant step towards achieving a better experience for passengers at our airports.
	Let me deal first with the amendments; I will come to the new clause in a moment. There can be no doubt about the importance of these issues, whether it is baggage handling or the protection and safeguarding of passengers in the event of disruption. I have huge sympathy with all the passengers who were subjected to hassle and inconvenience during the various incidents outlined by hon. Members today. It is clear that the aviation sector as a whole needs effective means to deal with passenger welfare during such incidents. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) gave us a timely reminder that this is not just a matter for airports, but that airlines have a number of important and legally binding duties in respect of passenger welfare. However, it is clear that airports have an important role to play as well.
	Although I can understand and agree with the sentiment behind much of what has been said today and the general aims of the amendments, I cannot recommend accepting them. The Bill provides a far more effective means of protecting passengers in relation to the matters raised. Clause 18 and the licensing regime will give the CAA the flexibility to tailor licence conditions to the specific circumstances facing individual airports. That flexibility is important as a means of minimising distortions associated with regulatory intervention and ensuring that the action taken by the CAA is proportionate and tailored to individual circumstances. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), giving the independent expert regulator flexibility and discretion in deciding the content of the licence is a more effective way to protect the interests of both present and future passengers. If Parliament chooses to use the legislation to hard-code certain points into licences that would constrain the regulator’s freedom to decide what priority should be afforded to different passenger concerns and what costs should be allowed for the delivery of competing consumer priorities.
	The amendments would make the licence system unbalanced because there is a wide range of different issues that passengers care about. Moreover, a prescriptive approach in the Bill is likely to make it more difficult for the regulator to adapt its approach to the changing concerns of passengers. If we adopted the amendments we would risk obliging the Civil Aviation Authority to give greater weight to the factors listed in the amendments than to matters that might become equally or, indeed, more important to passengers in future.
	I hope that I can provide some reassurance to hon. Members on the matters that they have raised. They can be confident that the CAA would use the new licensing powers proposed under the Bill to address the issues that they have raised in the amendments. As we discussed in Committee, in response to a request for advice from the Secretary of State, the CAA has published an indicative licence to assist Parliament in its scrutiny of the Bill. A copy was sent to the Library and, at the request of the Department for Transport, the draft licence includes provisions on operational resilience which, I agree, are crucial for an airport to be effective.
	The proposals in condition 7 would require the licence holder to operate the airport efficiently and to use its best endeavours to minimise any detriment to passengers arising from disruption. It would also require the airport to draw up, consult on and gain the CAA’s approval for an annual resilience plan setting out how it would secure compliance with its obligations under the condition. The licence holder would then be obliged to comply with commitments it made in its resilience plan. I hope that reassures hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling).

Gavin Shuker: Will the Minister confirm that if the amendments are not accepted, the current insufficient resilience safeguards might be something dealt with in a licence issued by the CAA?

Theresa Villiers: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, yes, it is clear that the Bill provides the CAA with flexibility to include provisions in the licence on baggage handling and passenger welfare. Our rejection of the amendments should not be taken as an indication
	that matters are not sufficient; it is simply that the Bill already provides the tools for the CAA to deal with those them.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again. She it talking about the provisions positively. Is it her view that the CAA should issue licences with provisions on those particular points?

Theresa Villiers: As I believe I said, the previous Secretary of State had already indicated to the CAA that resilience and passenger welfare were issues that should be addressed in the licence.

Nigel Mills: Something that is missing from the indicative licence is a requirement to measure or try to improve people’s experience at border control, although that is understandable, given that it is not within the remit of the CAA to deal with that. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Home Office, given the recent problems at Heathrow and elsewhere, to see whether more data can be published to try to improve that experience?

Theresa Villiers: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in the UK Border Force, and I shall come on to those matters. However, on various occasions, I have had discussions with Home Office colleagues on those matters.

Louise Ellman: On the same topic, how will passport control matters, which are the responsibility of the Home Office, be addressed under the licensing regime?

Theresa Villiers: As I shall come on to explain, I do not believe that the licensing regime is an appropriate mechanism to address issues relating to border controls.
	The CAA sought initial views from industry in drafting the indicative licence. However, Parliament has not yet concluded its consideration of the Bill, so the CAA has not yet begun to consult on proposed licence conditions for each airport that will be subject to regulation. Until consultations have taken place no final decisions will be taken about what goes into the licence. However, if the Bill is passed as drafted the CAA will consider the extent to which it is necessary to include conditions on resilience and passenger welfare in the licence. The CAA expects activities that may be part of the new licence regime to include taking into account other obligations on service quality standards, and the success of codes of conduct and voluntary arrangements adopted by the industry. As the body with the relevant operational expertise, the CAA is well placed to determine appropriate and effective licence conditions. The amendments could undermine our goal of giving the specialist regulator a flexible toolkit to protect the passenger, so I hope that the Opposition will not press them to a vote.

Graham Stringer: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As ever, she is generous with her time in answering questions. My question is slightly rhetorical. Does she accept it is much more difficult for such airports as Heathrow, which operates at 99% capacity, to be resilient?

Theresa Villiers: Whether in our rail system or at our airports, there is a trade-off between capacity and resilience. If a system is intensively used, it is often more difficult to maintain appropriate reliability, but I pay tribute to the work done at Heathrow in recent years to improve reliability. In my opinion, its record stands up strongly in comparison with that of its European competitors.
	On new clause 2, the Government of course agree that it is hugely important that airlines and airports should be sensitive to the needs of disabled people, and that they comply with the regulation that has been introduced to protect the interests of people with disabilities. I agree about the benefits of publishing information on compliance with obligations relating to disabled passengers. However, I do not support the new clause.
	My first concern is a practical one, as the provision is so drafted that it would put the obligation to produce an annual report on the Secretary of State and the CAA jointly. I have significant doubts about linking the CAA and the Secretary of State in that way. The aviation regulator and the national enforcement body for European aviation consumer legislation are separate from the Secretary of State in respect of ensuring compliance with EU law, and the amendment could be seen to compromise the CAA’s independence in that role. I am concerned, too, about the impact of the provision, and I believe that there are effective mechanisms already in place to secure the result that it is intended to achieve.
	The CAA publishes an annual report and corporate plan, and it makes a considerable amount of consumer information available on its website. An extra annual report on a specific area of legislation, on top of those more wide-ranging reports, seems disproportionate. The CAA is committed to the principles of better regulation, and it aims to be as transparent as possible in all its work, including in relation to compliance and the enforcement of legislation relating to consumers and disabled passengers.

Jim Shannon: Further to that point, and to what I said earlier, I am aware of many people, particularly people with disabilities, who are subject to a strip search every time they go to the airport. Is it necessary to go to that extreme every time someone who clearly has a disability appears at the airport?

Theresa Villiers: The airports have an important obligation to ensure that all security checks are carried out appropriately, but it is enormously important that they do so as sensitively as possible, particularly in relation to the needs of disabled passengers. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
	The CAA continues to develop capacity to help consumers, and is at an advanced stage of setting up a new consumer advisory panel to act as a critical friend of the regulator as it proceeds to put the consumer at the heart of its regulatory effort. I hope that those provisions give the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) the reassurance that she seeks. The new consumer panel, which will replace the Air Transport Users Council, is a step in the right direction. It will provide the CAA with an important insight into how it can best serve the consumer’s interest. It will have internal independence from the CAA, which will enable it to provide an effective challenge. It will have the scope to make public statements and it will publish an annual report.
	The panel has recently appointed a new chair, Mr Keith Richards, who has considerable experience of disabled air passenger issues, having been chair of the aviation working group of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee for many years, as well as the former head of consumer affairs at the Association of British Travel Agents. Clearly, the CAA and the new panel chair will need time to develop their relationship, but it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the passenger experience of disabled people at airports and on planes would be of considerable interest to the new chair. I suggest that it would be better to allow the new CAA consumer panel to have the space to develop, and to determine how it will go about its work and how best it can support and inform passengers, rather than to impose an obligation along the lines set out in the new clause.
	The Select Committee Chairman asked how licence conditions would be enforced. That is set out in clauses 31 to 47. They include measures on enforcement orders, which could require a licence holder to take action to comply with a condition. Penalties may also be imposed. As I have mentioned, licence conditions will be consulted on in due course.
	In response to the points made about the UK Border Force, I fully agree on the importance of ensuring efficiency at our borders. This is a matter that the Home Office and the UKBF take very seriously. Hon. Members who attended the Committee debates will recall the list of actions that I set out, and my describing how new technology and reformed working practices were being deployed to improve efficiency at our borders. However, I cannot accept that a system designed for the economic regulation of airports would be appropriate for the regulation of the activities of the UKBF. The UKBF is accountable to Ministers and, through them, to Parliament. That is the appropriate way to hold it to account, and we do not believe that the UKBF should be included in the Bill in that context.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) that I have engaged regularly with colleagues in the Home Office on the importance of efficiency at our borders. I will continue to do so. With that, I must ask the House to oppose the new clause.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Those who have been listening to the debate will realise that the Minister and I are not a million miles apart on the new clause and the amendments. Clearly, we have the joint objective of improving and protecting the passenger experience. However, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, the UK Border Agency and UK Border Force experience has not improved over the past few months and years. I recognise that that is a Home Office matter and is not covered by the amendments, but we accept that clauses 83 and 84, which cover the CAA’s requirement to procure information and publish the data on the passenger experience, could deal with the matters that we have raised in new clause 2 and in amendments 8 and 10.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said in an intervention on the Minister that resilience was absolutely critical at airports such as Heathrow that operate at 99% capacity. The CAA has published the indicative licence—a copy is in the Library of the House—and it incorporates a requirement to address resilience and passenger welfare plans. That
	completely satisfies us that the CAA understands that it ought to be part of its requirement to monitor those elements, and that requirement should therefore be part of the licence. Given the experience of recent years, we do not believe that our proposal would be over-burdensome in terms of bureaucracy or application. It should therefore be incorporated into the Bill. We will seek leave to withdraw new clause 2, but we are unconvinced that the Minister has given us adequate reassurance on amendment 9, so we shall take the view of the House on that at the appropriate time.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	  
	Risk-based aviation security regime

‘(1) The Secretary of State may direct the operators of airport areas to implement an outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime to govern the exercise of their functions in relation to aviation security.
	(2) When making directions under this section, the Secretary of State must by order set out the framework for the introduction of the outcomes-focused, risk-based aviation security regime.
	(3) An order under this section must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.—(John Woodcock.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John Woodcock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 11,page49,line31, Clause 80, at end insert—
	‘(2A) The CAA may also provide advice and assistance to such persons in connection with security checks performed on users of civil air services who have religious clothing requirements in order that their dignity be maintained without compromising the rigour of those security checks.’.
	Amendment 13,page51,line10, Clause 82, at end insert—
	‘(3A) Before making a scheme under this section the Secretary of State must review the impact of such transfers on the security functions of the CAA.’.
	Government amendments 17 and 18.

John Woodcock: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a number of issues relating to aviation security. This is an immensely important subject, and one on which the Bill before us has something to say, but we believe that additional safeguards are strongly in the public interest. There are questions that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State raised on Second Reading, and that I and other Labour Members raised in Committee, to which we have not yet had satisfactory answers. We believe that this proposal provides an opportunity for increased safeguards and scrutiny, and that is why we seek to amend the Bill today.
	The UK has a relatively strong record on aviation security. The current arrangements have evolved to meet the threats that have faced the UK from Lockerbie onwards, through the various plots that have emerged since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As terrorists have increased the sophistication of their efforts to cause death, destruction and disruption, so the UK aviation security system has, generally, shown an ability to adapt and stay one step ahead.
	The Bill proposes a major change in the security regime, shifting responsibility for overseeing security arrangements from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority. A number of issues flow from that. The first involves staffing. Although the move has broadly been welcomed by the industry, we raised concerns in Committee regarding the transfer of specialist security staff from the Department for Transport to the CAA. The Minister has not yet fully addressed those concerns, but I hope that she will do so shortly. Under the terms of the Bill, 85 members of staff will be transferred from the Department for Transport to the CAA. There is concern that some will choose not to transfer, and will instead leave public service. That could represent a serious loss of expertise in an area where finding suitable replacements could be difficult. To ensure the security of our airports and planes, we need to retain that experience.
	On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State asked the Government to consider seconding at least some staff, rather than transferring them. The Transport Committee has also made that recommendation. In Committee, the Minister told us that it was possible that some staff would be seconded. Our amendment 13 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of staff transfers before she gave the go-ahead to move responsibilities to the CAA. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to inform the House of the Government’s current position on secondments, and to tell us whether they have got beyond the stage of simply hoping that staff will not walk away.
	We have also tabled new clause 3, because we again want to give the Government the opportunity, which they passed up in Committee, to subject to parliamentary scrutiny their proposed shift to an outcome-focused, risk-based approach to aviation security. Without our new clause, the move to risk-based security would not be mentioned in the Bill at all. We should be clear about what the reform will entail. Under the Government’s proposed new security regime, rather than directing specific measures that airports must undertake in order to maintain security, Ministers will instead specify a number of key risks that need to be mitigated. It will then be for the airports themselves to undertake their own risk assessment. They will be tasked with analysing their local vulnerabilities, and with designing and implementing appropriate mitigating measures. I know that the Minister will agree that this represents a major change to the UK’s aviation security regime.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend presents a picture of changing security regimes under this Government, but does he accept that there are also changes coming through from Europe, particularly on issues such as liquids? Is not the best way of looking at security and exercising correct parliamentary oversight of it to look at the issues in more detail as the picture becomes clearer after the Bill has been introduced— exactly as the new clause outlines?

John Woodcock: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I intend to touch on Europe shortly.
	Carrying out such an approach presents a challenge to the industry. Directions from Europe, with which any UK regime will have to comply, usually mandate a
	blanket approach. As my hon. Friend says, that may well be changing. Through the new clause, we seek to require parliamentary scrutiny and approval before Ministers are permitted to undertake what would be one of the most significant reforms to aviation security in the past two decades.
	In Committee, the Minister suggested that Labour Members have set our face against moving towards a risk-based approach. That is not the case. We simply believe that any such move is serious enough to require parliamentary scrutiny—at the point and in the circumstances where the Government seek to make it.
	The Government’s impact assessment predicts significant reductions in regulation and costs. If they were to emerge in practice, they would, of course, be welcome—provided they did not result in security being compromised. There is support for such a reform from airlines and airport operators, and we have listened carefully to their opinions.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend accurately relates what the Government’s regulatory impact statement says. Will he acknowledge that, as we debated in Committee, Manchester and other airports strongly dispute those figures and believe that there will be a huge increase in the regulatory burden on airports?

John Woodcock: My hon. Friend raises a good point and accurately reflects some of the concerns that cast doubt on the impact assessment, which I know will have been thoroughly engaged in and scrutinised by Ministers and others across the whole Department, as it is now in Whitehall. There was much debate in Committee over whether the assessment thus far made presents an accurate picture.
	On an issue that is literally a matter of life and death, it would be deeply irresponsible to make such a major decision on the grounds of cost and regulatory burden alone. Ministers must make it clear how such a move would enhance Britain’s capacity to keep aviation secure.
	In their impact assessment, Ministers have argued that a move to a risk-based regime is consistent with the principles of better regulation. The drive to improve and lessen regulatory burdens, where appropriate, is one that we pioneered in government and continue to support now. However, moving away from the current “direct and inspect” regime for aviation should not automatically follow from that. Requiring specific parliamentary approval for this reform would give Members the opportunity for more detailed probing of some of the claims made by Ministers for this change, and how they would fit with EU directions at the time the change is proposed.
	In Committee, we did indeed question the reliability of the predicted costs of the reforms—supposedly £23.7 million over 10 years. Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the reliability of those figures in light of consultation responses. Furthermore, adopting a risk-based approach will inevitably create variation within security procedures adopted at different airports—again a major step change from the present.

Jim Shannon: One thing brought to my and perhaps others’ attention is the different focus on security at different airports. Security might be frustrating for some, but it is necessary for us all. Does the hon. Gentleman
	feel that with the legislative changes ahead, the focus on security will be similar across all the airports, which is vital?

John Woodcock: Of course the aim of the Government’s reforms is to have a similar focus on security. It might be carried out in different ways, but it will maintain the same effect—that we keep the country and our passengers secure. The cause of our questioning these measures and of our seeking extra scrutiny of the process is that the Government have not yet been able adequately to make the case that that effect will follow.

Brian H Donohoe: As a regular traveller, like my friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I know that the inefficiencies of the service are such that there is a crying need for a universal approach to security. In circumstances where the airport that passengers go through has a different regime in place, should not the regulation be attached to the idea of having uniform security across the whole of the airport system of the United Kingdom?

John Woodcock: My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this matter. One issue that the Government have not yet set out—and if they do not accept the new clause, they might not be required to do so before the House—is how the changes they seek to implement will not lead to increased fragmentation and a potentially less effective system as well as a more burdensome one for passengers.

Nigel Mills: But would the hon. Gentleman not accept that having every airport doing exactly the same thing all the time might be quite risky and that we might be better off having airports doing things a little differently, using different processes and techniques, which would make it harder for people trying to break the system to know exactly what they will be subjected to?

John Woodcock: As I have said, we have not set our face against the idea of a risk-based approach, but the Government have not yet done enough to set out how it would work in practice or how it would fit in with a potentially conflicting or contradictory approach from Europe. Ministers are not saying that they want to move to this approach now; they say they want the freedom to do so at some point in the future. At this stage, we do not know what the regime emanating from Europe will be. If the Government seek to press ahead with such a move, it is right to debate and scrutinise it at the time it comes into force when we should know what the European regime is likely to be. That is better than it going forward without scrutiny, which has been the position up to now. I hope that the Minister will seek to change what has been her preferred option.
	Those who seek to disrupt, maim and kill users of air transport and innocent people on the ground are constantly testing the defences that the country has put up. That is why we need Ministers to explain to this House the basis for their confidence in individual airports’ ability to assess and counteract risks adequately. In moving away from the current one-size-fits-all approach to security, we cannot permit there to develop a soft underbelly of smaller airports, where defences are lowered because
	they self-assess their risk to be low. Those intent on doing us harm will always look for opportunities. We currently see that on our television screens daily in the testimony from Oslo. We know from bitter experience that Britain is a nation with a heightened risk of terrorist attack. There can be no grounds for complacency, and I know the Minister agrees.
	We also need real consideration of the ability of a risk-based system to implement the necessary response to specific and sudden threats, such as the example of the liquid bomb plot in the summer of 2006. The discovery of this credible threat led Ministers to take the decision to ban liquids, and for a while most hand luggage, from flights to and from the UK. There is no suggestion that Ministers would lose the ability to take such steps in an emergency if they considered that to be necessary, but questions do arise about whether the ability of airports to carry out such emergency procedures might be hindered by their abandonment of uniform security provision. If each of more than 60 airports in the UK operates its own security regime, how straightforward will it be to ensure that emergency measures are adopted with uniformity, rigour and speed should circumstances render that appropriate?
	Major changes in aviation security policy cannot be undertaken lightly. I know that the Minister will cite the broad support of airlines and airports for the proposed shift, but it would be wrong if this were Parliament’s only opportunity to debate such a major change in the context of an Opposition amendment, and to seek ministerial assurances.
	The Minister will, I am sure, agree that cost and the principle of lessening regulation are not in themselves sufficient justifications for a root-and-branch reform of aviation security. The public rightly expect their elected representatives to maintain their security and safety in the skies. Ministers are proposing not a mere technical change, but a major overhaul. New clause 3 would require them to explain their proposals to both Houses, and to secure approval for a change when they wish to make it. I urge Members to support this extra safeguard.
	I want to say a little about amendment 11. The subject of ensuring the dignity of passengers with specific religious clothing requirements was touched on in Committee, and I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate improvements now. I am well aware that the subject has been of particular concern to the Sikh community, and that Members on both sides of the House have pushed for guarantees of better treatment for their constituents. I am particularly grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) have pursued the issue in recent months.
	Aviation security is always paramount, and we make that clear in the amendment, but we believe that it is possible for a rigorous security regime to exist alongside dignity for passengers with specific religious clothing requirements. The way in which security staff treat the Sikh turban is a particularly good example. In 2010, the European Commission introduced requirements for religious headwear to be subject to manual searches. It has been suggested that, given that the UK is the only EU member state with a substantial Sikh community,
	Europe failed to understand the specific sensitivities of the turban: that it should not be touched by another person, and that its removal should not be required.
	The UK reached an agreement with the Commission enabling airports to opt into a trial allowing the swabbing of turbans for explosive residues, a compromise that was broadly welcomed by the Sikh community. However, a number of UK airports have chosen not to opt into the trial, which has caused significant distress and anger among Sikhs. We want to see a more consistent approach which would ensure that people with specific religious requirements, whatever their faith, are treated with dignity.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend is making some compelling observations about the Sikh community and security, with which I entirely agree. Does he agree with me that—as is demonstrated by, for example, 1970s legislation on motor cycle helmets—political leadership is sometimes required to bring about action on issues that are vital to communities represented in constituencies throughout the House, and that bureaucrats may not always be able to make the necessary judgments?

John Woodcock: As ever, my hon. Friend has made an excellent point, and the amendment presents an opportunity for such leadership to be shown.

Theresa Villiers: Perhaps I can illustrate that by reminding the House that as soon as the problem began to emerge, when the new EU rules were introduced, the former Secretary of State for Transport instructed airports to stop applying the EU rules and revert to the old rules until a trial was developed. He took decisive political leadership then, and we will continue to adopt that approach.

John Woodcock: The Minister is right to point out that action has been taken in this regard. The point that we are making today, with which I hope she will agree, is that some airports are still not applying sensitivity as we would wish them to do. That remains an issue, but we now have an opportunity to do something about it.

Seema Malhotra: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue which I think is understood by Members on both sides of the House. On Sunday a constituent told me that, at a European airport, her husband had been asked to remove his turban in front of others, which caused great distress to him and his children. What does my hon. Friend think could be done to ensure that people are treated with dignity, not just through processes but through staff training and the increasing of awareness?

John Woodcock: Training is an excellent example. We believe that the amendment would empower and encourage the Civil Aviation Authority to take the necessary action in its regulatory role. Too often we find that airports are lacking in this regard, owing mostly to ignorance.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Can he confirm that if new clause 3 and amendment 11 and were not passed today, the House would have no further opportunity to express its views about the security regime in relation to particular items of religious headwear?

John Woodcock: I believe so. That is why it is so important for our amendment to be accepted, and for the Minister to provide substantive reassurances.

John Spellar: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the UK, for historic reasons, has the largest Sikh community. That confers a particular responsibility on Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport to ensure that these sensitivities are understood in European discussions. Does my hon. Friend think that the passing of the amendment would reinforce their ability to ensure, in such discussions, that other countries with less experience of the issue appreciate its significance?

John Woodcock: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Passing the amendment would send a strong signal to our European neighbours that the UK attaches great importance to the issue, and would empower our Ministers and officials to go out to Europe and secure the necessary safeguards.
	Our amendment seeks to write into law the role of the CAA in providing airports with advice and assistance on ensuring that dignity is maintained. Any move to a risk-based system reducing the uniformity of security provision between airports would make that all the more important. I hope that the amendment will be supported by Members throughout the House. If our aviation security regime is to command the confidence of all communities in this country, we must do more to ensure that they can be certain of being treated at all times with fairness, dignity and respect. This is a simple amendment, which I believe will help to achieve exactly that.

Karl Turner: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have heard today that the Deputy Prime Minister may be planning to visit my constituency. That has caused me to make various inquiries. I began by ringing the Deputy Prime Minister’s departmental office and I was told that if he is visiting Hull East tomorrow, it will not be on ministerial duties. I then received a phone call from Lib Dem HQ, telling me that they were very sorry and that there had been some sort of mistake as the Deputy Prime Minister will, indeed, be in my constituency tomorrow.

Chris Heaton-Harris: This is a political point.

Karl Turner: I wonder whether you can advise me on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman is going on a bit.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Heaton-Harris, you should know much better, as you have many years of experience in Europe in addition to your time as a Member of this House. I am sure the point of order is coming to an end, and when it does I shall give a quick ruling.

Karl Turner: I am always very glad to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to Hull East. Indeed, if he is visiting in order to campaign, I am sure he will do very well for the Labour party. What is the convention of this House, however?

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me say that it is a customary courtesy for any Member visiting another Member’s constituency to inform them of that visit. There may have been an oversight in this instance, and I am sure that that is now in the process of being corrected, perhaps via the Deputy Prime Minister’s political office, and that the hon. Gentleman will be contacted sooner rather than later.

John Spellar: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have huge regard for your qualities, and the abilities you bring to your office. I was therefore astonished at the recent intervention by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), seeming to imply that you would not know whether a Member was in order. I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that, and that in future he will treat your office, Mr Deputy Speaker—and, indeed, yourself—with greater respect.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure we can now make good progress.

Louise Ellman: Security was one area on which the Select Committee expressed concerns and raised questions. Some of those concerns are touched upon in some of the amendments. The change in security arrangements—responsibility in part moving from the Department to the CAA—is linked to a change to an outcome-focused, risk-assessment regime, but that basic change of policy has not been fully debated. The Committee did not address the subject in depth; instead, we looked at certain specific issues, which are in the Bill.
	The shift in responsibility from the Department to the CAA will result in increased costs to the industry. While industry generally supports the changes in the Bill, it is concerned about costs. It has been stated that the cost will be £5 million a year, but I understand that, in fact, the figure could be a great deal higher.
	Another issue is how the division of responsibilities will operate in practice. Under the proposed changes, the Secretary of State is to have responsibility for policy and the CAA is to have responsibility for operational matters, but it is unclear how that division will be made and how that would operate, particularly in emergency situations when swift decisions may be required.
	That issue is linked to the concern we expressed about staffing, and the possibility of staff in the Department who have expertise in this area not moving to the CAA and therefore not being available to deploy their expertise where and when it is most needed. We have not received any clear answers on that. We suggested there might be secondments. I understand that the Department is not very supportive of that idea, and does not accept that it may solve the problem. We remain concerned about this possible loss of expertise.
	I understand that the CAA will be undertaking its new responsibilities by 2014. That is not a long time in the future. It is important that the issues I have raised are addressed. There is also the question of whether the move to an outcome-focused, risk-assessment approach will, in fact, maintain—or, indeed, increase—vital levels of security.

Graham Stringer: I wish to make one general point and two specific ones. The Minister will know that although I accept the basic thrust of the Bill, I have never accepted the regulatory impact assessment and I believe that, throughout the Bill, extra burdens are being introduced for the aviation sector. I have been surprised and disappointed that she, as a Conservative Minister, has not explored more of the market-based solutions to some of these problems.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, any assessment of the security costs is unlikely to be accurate, because many of the security regulations will be made at the European level. Making any such assessment is always going to be difficult, but it is close to impossible in this case. I am not going to repeat the discussion that we had in Committee, but I will say that Manchester airport is very concerned that the very expensive scanners that it has put in place may be outlawed by the new European regulations. That is the background to my position; I am unconvinced by the Government’s figures.
	The first of my two specific points relates to security and follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said. I am firmly of the school, particularly on security, that thinks, “If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?” There is no evidence to suggest that TRANSEC is not doing a good job. It is integrated with other security services and, more importantly, for transport matters it is integrated with other transport areas apart from aviation. In short, it is doing a good job, and it seems to me that the real motive—the real driver—for moving security on to airports is primarily cost. That is not a good reason, particularly given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, this will not have received the scrutiny that it deserves before the Bill goes through. Why take a risk? Why stand a chance of losing experienced and well-qualified members of TRANSEC, who may not want to move into airports? This proposal is unnecessary and the justification for it is weak.
	I come to my second and final point. The Minister will recall that when I asked her in Committee whether other airports in the European Union had the costs of their security paid for by their Governments, she said that she thought they did. She then wrote to me and said something, and I followed it up with a parliamentary question, which she was good enough to answer fairly quickly. Her response showed that either she was not telling me—I do not believe that she would do that; I am sure that if she knew, she would tell me and other Members of the House—or, as I think, the Department did not know which countries and which airports paid for their security and which did not.
	So not only are we being driven by cost, with a lack of scrutiny, to change a security system that works, but, as with other parts of the Bill, that is going to put a burden on UK airports that is not shared by some of their continental competitors. We know that the larger airports in this country—this does not apply to the tiny airports—such as Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, and possibly some others, are competing as hubs for traffic throughout Europe, particularly for incoming traffic. Yet the Minister is unable to tell us, after a long debate in Committee and after a parliamentary question, whether we are being put at a competitive disadvantage, because she does not know which of
	those airports have their security paid for by their Governments. So I would like her to answer as thoroughly as she can on this matter. I do not believe that the case has been fully made, and I do not believe that the impact on the competitiveness and success of our airports has been judged properly and accurately.

Pat McFadden: I want to say a few things in support of amendment 11 on security checks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, the amendment calls for maintaining the rigour of those security checks while carrying them out in a manner that preserves religious dignity. Obviously, we need strong security at our airports—of that there is no doubt. The terrorism threat is very real—we have had the shoe bomber and we have had the underpants bomber—and the travelling public expect the Government and the airport authorities to do all that they can to ensure their safety. It is therefore not a surprise that security is a high concern in the Bill and a strong concern at a European level.
	I and a number of other MPs who have large numbers of Sikh constituents have had many representations about the matter over the past year or so. In particular, we received representations about the way in which new European rules were being implemented, a concern that focused on the question of the physical searching of the turban, or, as Sikhs call it, the dastaar. I believe that the Sikh community, like any other part of the UK, accepts the need for strong security and understands that there is a terrorist threat, but it wants security to be implemented in a way that maintains religious dignity, which is what amendment 11 calls for.
	I thank the Minister for listening to the representations from MPs and organisations representing the Sikh community on this issue. As she said in her intervention a few moments ago, the Department for Transport, in response to those concerns when they were at their height, organised a trial using swab and wand technology at our airports. That trial is still in progress. I believe that it was due to finish this summer and I want to ask her a few questions. Following the transfer of responsibility for some of these matters from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority, how will MPs make representations on such issues in the future? It is important for us to have direct access to Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport; will we still be able to reflect the views of our constituents in the same way under the Bill?
	Will the Minister also tell the House what will happen when the trial involving the swab and wand technology comes to an end? Will there be a formal report or a statement to the House in written or oral form about how that trial has gone? Importantly, do the UK Government intend to report the results to the European Commission, which drafted the new rules in the first place?
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said a few moments ago that the United Kingdom had by far the largest Sikh community in the European Union. That is true. It also has the longest experience of having a Sikh community and we have been through these arguments, whether they are about the right of Sikhs to wear their turbans when riding a
	motorcycle, the right of bus drivers to wear them or the right of serving police officers to wear them. We have been through the arguments time and time again and different UK Governments have proven to be responsive to the concerns, which has enabled us to reach an accommodation. As my Sikh constituents often say to me, if wearing a turban was good enough to fight in the trenches, why is it not good enough to be worn in other walks of life?
	The flexibility that the UK has shown through the trial is to be commended. I am not saying that the trial is perfect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, it has not been implemented everywhere. Has the Minister received representations about problems in airports that are not taking part in the trial? Importantly, the fact that the Minister has written to Transport Ministers in other EU member states to outline the British approach has been a good initiative, but problems remain, especially outside the UK. We have had a number of Sikh constituents reporting aggressive and highly distressing searches, particularly at Italian airports, which have shown little regard for religious dignity. Some of us have made representations to the Italian embassy about those.
	Our security regime must work with our population. It must be compatible with the free movement of people, which is one of the founding principles of the European Union, and if a section of our population feel that they simply cannot travel, we should be highly concerned. If we have ill thought-out regulations, which do not command support and simply restrict the movement of people, I do not believe that that enhances security.
	I and my hon. Friends are not arguing in any way for a diminution of security at our airports. As I said at the start of my speech, such security is a very important requirement, and the terrorist threat is real and apparent to us all. We are arguing for a regime that takes into account the reality of the UK today and the reality of who makes up our population. We are arguing for the UK Government to use their influence to try to convince the European Commission and other member states to look at the approach that we have adopted and, importantly, to consider the results of the trial that we have carried out. I very much hope that that trial shows that there has not been a diminution of security with the approach that the Minister has authorised in the airports. In that way, we can have security with consent and we can maintain freedom of movement for every part of our community. That is an aim that we should support, and that is precisely the aim of amendment 11.

Julie Hilling: I start by expressing concern about the “user pays” principle. We do not apply that to the police or other safety and security issues and services. I will expand on that in a moment, but first I want to express my concern about the outcome-focused, risk-based approach to security. The terrorist has only got to get through once; we have to be 100% successful at stopping the terrorist. I am still not convinced that a focus on outcomes will achieve the necessary ends. I therefore believe that the Government must be extremely clear about what they are saying about the risk-based focus. I am still not convinced that just specifying the end result will be adequate.
	To return to the costs, the Government say that the freedom of airports to devise their own systems could lead to cost savings, and that worries me hugely. Will that mean that, potentially, airports will be looking at how they might cut costs, and therefore will cut corners? I am concerned that some airports might be less rigorous than others. Our biggest concern in the past few years has been around transatlantic services, which of course have high prestige for the terrorist. However, any attack on any airport or airliner—or, in fact, train, ship or anything else—would be significant and would produce that wonderful splash of publicity that terrorists want to see. If we do not prescribe what airports should include in their security services, is there not a risk that we shall not be able to monitor them properly? I am concerned that some of those smaller airports may then become soft targets for terrorists.

Bob Stewart: When we are looking at security, we can take no shortcuts whatever. We say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but terrorists spend their time trying to work the system that they are viewing, so that approach does not work in security. We have to try and change the system to throw the terrorist. I think the hon. Lady probably agrees with me on that.

Julie Hilling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I absolutely agree with him. That is why I am very concerned that if cost is a driving force within security, airports may look to see how they can reduce costs rather than, as the hon. Gentleman says, continuing to be innovative. As he so rightly says, it is not enough to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted and say, “They got through there but we can stop them next time.” We have to stop them the first time—an incredibly difficult task.

Nigel Mills: Will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the full body scanners that have been installed by Manchester airport? The evidence is that not only are they cheaper to run and much preferred by the passenger for being less intrusive—there is no need for the physical pat-down—but they maintain all the security features. That is the kind of security innovation that we would like to see, and it is a crying shame that there is a threat from the European Union that the use of those scanners will not be allowed to continue.

Julie Hilling: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has already seen my speech. I shall go on to talk about Manchester airport.
	We have heard about the profiling of potential offenders. I am concerned that people with brown skins are more likely than others to be pulled over for more rigorous security checks, and I am not yet convinced that that will not occur. We have seen what happened with stop and search on the streets. Will that be replicated in our airports? The percentage of black and minority ethnic people who are stopped and searched by the police is much higher than that for the white population, and the police can argue, as can any security service, that certain people are more likely to be involved in street crime and gang-related violence, but the result is the capturing of everybody of a certain colour or ethnicity, which can become very worrying.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is no longer in her place, spoke about the Sikh gentleman who was asked to remove his turban. We must ensure that people will not be targeted because of the way they look or because they come from a certain background. We need to ensure that people are treated the same and that people who meet certain criteria are the ones who are picked out.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend mentioned the statistics associated with police stop and search. I am unclear about the current statistics in relation to people subjected to personal or invasive searches in airports. Does that not support the case for a full assessment of aviation security to be carried out by the House through a further instrument?

Julie Hilling: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree with him.
	We were told in the Select Committee and in the Public Bill Committee that risk-based security was based on an analysis of people’s behaviour—how they purchase tickets, what insurance policies they have, and so on—but a certain group of people are still more likely to commit an offence. I hope the Minister can reassure me and colleagues that the proposals will ensure that people are caught and are not able to commit atrocities in our skies.
	Aside from the race element, there has been an increasing number of complaints from disabled people about how they have been treated at airports, especially from people with colostomy bags or other physical attributes, who have been subjected to pat-down searches. Again, we must consider how to ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against and that they are treated with no less concern for their dignity than other people, even if that means that they may have to go through another door for certain other investigations. Those investigations must not be intrusive or discriminatory or interfere with people’s dignity.
	As we heard, at Manchester a scheme has been in place since 2009. Body scanners have been trialled that use backscatter X-ray technology which does not yet have EU approval. I am informed that the radiation from the body scanner is equivalent to cruising for two minutes at altitude and that the scanners have been approved by the Health Protection Agency. However, when the trial ends in October, unless there is an extension, the airport will not be able to continue using them.
	The passenger approval rate is 95%. People much prefer it to the old-fashioned pat-down search, as do security staff, because it avoids the need to touch and the bending and stretching that they would otherwise have to do. Not everybody goes through the body scanner. Everybody goes through the first security phase, then a door opens and they either go through the body scanner or go straight ahead. The system has worked, but the concern is that if the EU does not approve it, the investment will have been wasted. More worryingly, what incentive will airports have to be innovative in future? As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggested, we must continue to ensure that terrorists do not find any loopholes in our security system.
	On the outcome-focused, risk-based approach, the Minister seems to be saying that the Bill gives airports the chance to innovate and look at other ways of
	reaching the same solution. That approach is not working for Manchester because it will not be able to continue using the scanners unless the Government can agree with the EU that the system should continue. Will airports be less likely to invest their own money? Even if the Government’s desired outcomes are achieved, a different input method would be used. My worry is that there is not a clear enough picture for how we achieve the outcome-focused, risk-based approach.
	Of course, this is a worldwide issue. We need to ensure that passengers returning to and departing from the UK have stringent security checks. Whether across the European Union or globally, we need systems in place that we can all live and work with. I hope that the Minister will return to the issue. As I have said, I am not convinced that an outcome-focused, risk-based approach will allow innovation and ensure that our airports all have the same level of security.
	Finally, I want to talk about the staff transfer issue. As hon. Friends have said, the trade unions, the Transport Committee and the Public Bill Committee have all expressed concerns about losing expertise through the transfer of staff from the Department to the CAA and fear that current employees will look for other opportunities in the civil service. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), wrote to me on that point and stated that the Department could look at how secondments might be used but was committed to ensuring that the costs of regulation are transferred to users and away from taxpayers.
	The Minister also said that seconding Department staff to the CAA, rather than transferring them with a function, is unlikely to help ensure that experienced staff remain with the CAA when secondments end. I feel that the Minister has missed the point. Many civil servants are seconded to outside agencies and the cost is transferred to those agencies. While the function that the civil servant fulfilled is transferred, they would stay with the agency within their role. It is not the case that they would be transferred for a fixed period of time and then come back; they are transferred with that function. That means that the individual would retain their terms and conditions and, most importantly, their pension rights. We know that that is of great concern to the employees and that that is why we are most likely to lose that expertise, because they say that they do not want to lose those things and so want to stay within the civil service to look for other opportunities. I hope that the Minister will rethink the decision and not risk the flight of staff and the loss of expertise and, with it, the resilience in our security system.

John Spellar: As a former Transport Minister, I particularly welcome amendment 11. It will also be very much welcomed by the Sikh community, especially, and fortuitously, at this time of the Sikh festival of Vaisakhi, which Members of Parliament from both sides of the House celebrated with the community last night here in the Palace of Westminster. As colleagues have said, the Sikh community has historically served this country very well and is now an enormously important and dynamic part of our community, both in business and in many of the professions.
	The Sikh community have expressed their concerns, particularly about the handling of the turban at airports, but throughout these discussions—I was involved as a Minister in previous iterations—they have always made it clear that they fully accept the need for security and, therefore, ask, “How do we achieve that?” within the sensitivities of their religion.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) highlighted how in this country we have approached the matter intelligently, and, whether in relation to motorcycles, the police, the Army or a number of other areas, we have obtained an accommodation at the same time as maintaining a necessary and appropriate standard. Wand and swab technology has also been mentioned, and that would enable us to achieve exactly the same position—achieving and maintaining not only security but a sensitive approach.
	The Department’s officials have a long history of wanting trials and experiments to go on for far too long—we saw it with hard-shoulder running—but, if the current trials are showing a positive outcome, I hope that we can report on them early and look at any necessary roll-out.
	I recognise the particular difficulties that we face, however, and they have been alluded to in other contributions. In European countries with relatively small Sikh populations, the community’s concerns do not register, so there is a particular responsibility on this country, on its civil servants and on Ministers to be alert to that at an early stage.
	On several occasions, we have had to respond to regulations that have been introduced and, then, to try and unravel them. It is much better if we look at the issue at an early stage and ensure that any regulations that are introduced do not impact negatively on the community.
	As I said in an intervention, new clause 3 would not only provide focus in the Department, but reinforce the arguments that it, of necessity, has to have with Commission officials and its counterparts in other countries in order to ensure that the very real and genuine concerns of this very important community are understood and acted upon.

Pat Glass: I wish to speak in particular to new clause 3.
	We have heard that the Bill will move the responsibility for security functions from the Department for Transport to the Civil Aviation Authority, and new clause 3 in particular is concerned with another change in aviation security: the move from the current direct-and-inspect regime to an outcomes-focused, risk-based one.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has already told us that Labour does not oppose the principle of a risk-based approach—an approach to reforming regulation that the party promoted in government and continues to support—but the life and death nature of aviation security means that such a significant shift must be subject to proper scrutiny to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place. Although reductions in cost and in regulatory burdens are of course welcome, in aviation security, as perhaps in no other area, such decisions cannot be based solely on cost and on slimming down regulatory systems.
	The Minister could and should have taken the opportunities presented by the Bill, which includes a major shift in security procedures, to guarantee parliamentary scrutiny of the move to a risk-based system. Under new clause 3, a resolution to permit the move would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament and give us the opportunity to consider several important issues. It would allow us here in Parliament to consider the reliability of the Government’s estimated cost of changing the regime, which stands at £23.7 million over 10 years.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, there are already concerns about whether the figure of £23.7 million over three years will allow for sufficient levels of training and staffing to fulfil security arrangements.
	The new clause would give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether there is a risk that removing a one-size-fits-all approach to security creates the possibility of different levels of security at different airports, and the possibility at smaller airports of more lax security arrangements, which—ostensibly, given their lower threat level—terrorists could exploit.
	The new clause would give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether there is a risk that the removal of the one-size-fits-all approach to security will create different levels of security at different airports, with more lax security arrangements at smaller airports, which ostensibly have a lower threat level, that could be exploited by terrorists. It would give Parliament the opportunity to consider how well the new aviation security regime will cope with emergency situations such as the liquid bomb plot of 2006. It would give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether the Civil Aviation Authority has demonstrated that it has the ability and resources to regulate a risk-based system effectively following the transfer of security functions under the Bill.
	I repeat that Opposition Members are not against the move to an outcomes-focused regime in principle. However, this is a major shift in an area of high risk and it needs to be scrutinised properly by Parliament to give confidence not only to this House, but, more important, to the airline travelling public.

Gavin Shuker: It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments, because it is probably the most important one that we will discuss, other than that on environmental protections, which we will come to later.
	To put the proposals in context, we are discussing a big shift in aviation security. This is not a peripheral part of the Bill, but a cornerstone. In Committee, we had robust debates about how best to arrange aviation security. I want to put it on the record that I do not believe that the Government wish to weaken aviation security. However, their ideological position is that it is important for the Government to withdraw, where possible, and to pass responsibility to other groups, whether they be agencies, third sector organisations or quangos.

Bob Stewart: I apologise for intervening for a second time and thank the hon. Gentleman. The key thing is that, whatever the Government do and whoever is responsible for the security at our airports, security is at least as good as it is now. It might be better or even different. Difference is a good thing in security, as long as the people are well-trained and have decent equipment.

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the issue. I agree with him completely that the regime that comes in must be as good as, if not better than, the one it replaces. That is why amendment 13 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full assessment of the change. I hope that there will be support for that if it is pressed later.
	The hon. Gentleman’s second point was that change is important. Change is essential in aviation security and in all aspects of security so that we do not get into the pattern of doing the same thing day after day and thereby miss the threats. This country has an advanced aviation security regime. There is good partnership between airports, the Department for Transport and the agency within the DFT to ensure that it is implemented. When I sat on the Transport Committee, I was pleased to accompany its Chair, who spoke earlier in this debate, to speak to the officials who are charged with our aviation security in the run-up to the passage of the legislation. It is clear that we have major expertise in this, which we can share across Europe.
	The key issue is not whether the Bill will strengthen or weaken our aviation security, nor what operational procedures or equipment we should use, but the question raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart): will the regime be better? At this stage, I do not have the information that is needed to answer that question. More important, I fear that the House has not had an opportunity to explore and answer that question fully. The new clause seeks to bring about such an opportunity, which is extremely welcome.
	When we consider what the role of the Government should be, we see that the public expect there to be a hierarchy of interventions. There are places where they do not want government at all, and there are places where it is very much required. Security and the protection of the people are at the top of that hierarchy. Although the change being made in the Bill is not in any way designed to push the matter off the Secretary of State’s desk, it is a change to a system that has by and large worked very well.
	The change is very big, however, and as I said in an intervention, it comes in the context of changes that are happening around Europe. I visited Brussels two weeks ago to talk about a number of subjects, and the extent to which the UK has become a tarnished brand was clear. Ever since the Conservative party moved to a more right-wing grouping within Europe, and more recently because of the veto that the Prime Minister exercised—although many of us would question what it actually stopped—our Government’s ability to influence other national Governments’ policies on various matters that we should agree on as a bloc has been diminished.

Theresa Villiers: I think the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that the last time I attended the Council of Ministers, the Danish presidency proactively raised the issue of security reform, drawing on a number of the principles that we were considering in the UK. There is already interest in Europe in what we are doing, and we as a country can take a leading role in the debate on how to deliver a much more effective and passenger-friendly security regime.

Gavin Shuker: I absolutely agree that we have great expertise to share across Europe, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister has been making that point in
	Brussels. If she were being charitable, though, I think she would accept that the atmosphere there has changed.

Theresa Villiers: indicated  dissent .

Gavin Shuker: No, she is not going to be charitable. Okay.
	The Minister rightly gave the example of the ministerial team at the Department for Transport having acted in response to concerns about European guidance on security related to the Sikh community. The current system allowed her to take that action, but we are about to change that system.

Theresa Villiers: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the move to an outcomes-focused, risk-based system will not change the responsibilities in relation to directions such as that given by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond). Under the new system, the Secretary of State will still have the power to make directions such as he did in relation to the problem of religious headgear.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving me that assurance, but I would like her to give it to the House in a full debate about aviation security. By 7 o’clock tonight, the House will have finished Report stage. My party’s Front Benchers made their arguments so forcefully that I am sure they will carry the day if the amendments are pressed, but if not, we will have to go on assurances from the Government, not on assessments such as those we call for in the amendments or on positive resolutions of both Houses such as could be made if new clause 3 were accepted.
	I accept the Minister’s point about leadership and am pleased that she is being responsive on the matter, but we must not ignore the fact that a big change is being made to aviation security. The public will want us to be able to account for what we have done. The change should not be made lightly; it should be made with the full, cross-party support of the House.

John McDonnell: I apologise for coming into the debate somewhat late. I was at a ministerial meeting about issues to do with Heathrow, particularly deportation and the detention centres at Harmondsworth and Colnbrook.
	I wish to make two simple points. The first is about new clause 3 and relates to an issue that has come up time and again in debates about airport security. Members may recall that I chaired the meetings at Heathrow after 9/11, at which we brought together all the companies, BAA, Ministers and others. Two things came out of those discussions. One was the need for training, which has been mentioned today. There was a lack of training at the time, particularly on lower-level perimeter security. The second was the difficulty of recruiting and attracting sufficiently qualified staff, largely as a result of the low pay levels. We sought to resolve that in discussions with the Government. We wanted not only to bring all the agencies together to improve training, but to have it recognised that pay levels for security workers at Heathrow,
	some of whom at best lived on just above the minimum wage at that time, needed to be addressed if we were to recruit and retain appropriate staff.
	I support new clause 3, which is why I put my name to it. If we are to get the CAA to discuss a new framework, it needs to include a further discussion not only about training but about pay. Levels of pay at Heathrow are under significant pressure at the moment, and the workers under the most significant pressure are those in the security industry around Heathrow. I believe that some pay levels are causing problems in respect of the recruitment and retention of sufficiently trained and professional staff. I raise that because we seem to be debating the agenda of work for the CAA as it takes over such responsibilities. The new clause would set out the framework under which the CAA must introduce its agenda of issues to be addressed, which I welcome.
	My second point concerns amendment 11, to which my right hon. Friends the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and others spoke. We have been talking about the religious clothing issue certainly for the 15 years since I have been in the House and probably for the century that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley has been here. Amendment 11 refers to users of the service—that is completely right and I support the amendment, because it would set religious clothing as a priority for the CAA and its agenda of work—but workers at the airport are also affected, in respect of both the turban and the kirpan.
	We have come to a clear agreement at Heathrow—I congratulate the previous and current Governments on assisting us in achieving a consensus—whereby workers are not in any way discriminated against for abiding by their religious tenets, including by wearing the turban and the kirpan. There are two problems, however. First, new security firms that start operating at the airport and in associated industries around the airport have in some cases failed to comply with the agreements reached at Heathrow. Some bizarre cases in which people have been discriminated against have arisen as a result. I want to ensure that the CAA recognises that religious clothing requirements affect workers and not just users of the service, as amendment 11 states.
	Secondly, our work force at Heathrow and elsewhere are naturally mobile—they work at airports across Europe. We therefore need to tell the CAA that it has a role in leading the debate within Europe and in trying to get other sectors together. We have resolved the problem with regard to both the turban and kirpan for workers at Heathrow and elsewhere in the British Isles, but we can now seek to get a common agreement across Europe. In that way, Sikh workers will not experience difficulties and will not be discriminated against when they start working at other airports across Europe, as they will in increasing numbers because of their mobility and the integration of companies that operate at more than one airport in Europe.
	For those reasons, new clause 3 would be incredibly valuable. Amendment 11 would give the appropriate indication to the CAA of the significance of the issue, not only for hon. Members but, more important, for the Sikh community of this country.

Theresa Villiers: Government amendments 17 and 18 have not had much attention so far, which is probably a good thing for Government amendments. They are minor and technical, and provide for a change to section 12(3) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 by substituting the words “that Authority” with “the CAA”, thereby removing any doubt that the CAA is the authority referred to.
	Amendment 11 to clause 80 deals with religious headwear. Committee members will recall that I raised this matter to illustrate some of the points we were discussing. I am sure the House will agree on the importance of ensuring that passengers are treated with respect at all points during their journey through an airport and that our system of security checks is operated in a culturally sensitive way. I welcome the work of colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) on this important issue.
	Each passenger departing from a UK airport undergoes a standard security process, irrespective of their age, gender or ethnic background. The problems highlighted today relating to religious headwear emerged in April 2010, when new EU regulations came in that required a physical hand search to be carried out in relation to turbans. As hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, have mentioned, physical contact with the turban causes considerable distress and offence to Sikhs. That was a concern not only for passengers but for many members of staff, as Heathrow is lucky enough to draw many members of staff from the Sikh community.
	The former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), acted swiftly and instructed airports to suspend temporarily the application of the new EU rules. As I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), the ability to take such a decision will remain in place under the new approach, because the Secretary of State will retain responsibility for policy and directions.
	Airports were instructed to revert to the old systems while consideration was given to how to resolve the concerns expressed by the Sikh community. After intensive work over a short period, a trial was put together with the assistance of members of the Sikh community and is now under way at almost all the UK’s major airports. It uses a combination of explosive trace detection and hand-held metal detectors as an alternative to a hand search of the turban. This technology is successfully deployed in the United States as part of their aviation security regime. The trial is going well and is being carefully evaluated, and we are keeping the European Commission up to date with the results.
	I have also written to European aviation and security Ministers to highlight the importance of the issue and to draw their attention to the trial, conscious of the sort of points made today about the UK’s responsibility as a country with a significant Sikh community. We very much hope that the trial will provide a sound basis of evidence for the EU in deciding whether it is possible to change the European rules on security to meet the concerns of Sikhs and ensure that the rules operate in a culturally sensitive way. The trial runs for 18 months up
	until this summer, and we are currently engaging with the EU with a view to continuing to conduct searches in this way.

Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the Minister for updating the House on the progress of the trial. Has she received any indication from the European Commission about its willingness to adopt this approach more widely, if the UK Government conclude that it does not compromise airport security?

Theresa Villiers: As I recall, it featured in my discussions with Siim Kallas last time I was at the Council of Ministers. We get the impression that the Commission is interested and has an open mind, and, in respect of the immediate prospects, we will consider whether we need to start a further trial when the current one expires in July. We are considering various ways of solving the problem, because it is important that we find a solution that works for the community.

John Spellar: Given that the trial must have been running for about 12 months, will the Minister tell us whether it has been a success? Most of the evidence will have come in the first month.

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, we believe that the trial has been positive so far, but it would not be appropriate for me to pre-judge the results before they have been properly assessed.
	By way of further reassurance on this issue, clause 80 secures the same outcome as amendment 11, by inserting a new section 21I into the Aviation Security Act 1982, which will require the CAA to provide aviation security advice to airports, airlines and other groups. That would, if the CAA considers it to be appropriate, include advice on security checks on passengers wearing religious clothing. Therefore, although amendment 11 has provided a valuable opportunity for the House to discuss the matter, the Bill already provides for the outcome that it seeks. The Government will continue to engage with both the Commission and other member states with a view to finding a long-term solution to this important issue.
	Let me turn to an outcomes-focused risk-based security regime. I welcome the words of support in principle for that direction of travel which we heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). We have put together a joint Department for Transport-CAA team with the relevant skills and knowledge to develop, trial and implement the new regulatory regime. We have consulted stakeholders and hosted several interactive events with industry to explain our position. A range of trials will be carried out applying the new regulatory approach. We are conscious of the importance of retaining staff, if we can, when the posts are transferred from the Department for Transport to the CAA. We are working to ensure that we retain those staff when the posts are transferred.
	The hon. Gentleman has made points about secondments in the past. We do not see a major difference being made to the retention of staff when a secondment ends, although we certainly do not rule that out as part of our strategy for retaining expertise. To respond to the points that the shadow Minister made, we agree that we are talking about a significant change to aviation security.
	To respond to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), we believe that this move could reduce costs for industry, but that is certainly not the driving factor. The paramount priority must be to ensure that aviation security remains robust at all times. I believe that moving to a more outcomes-focused and risk-based approach could well enable us to deliver higher standards than apply currently, as we will be giving the airport industry more opportunity to develop innovative ways to deliver security outcomes and apply principles of continuous improvement. We are absolutely certain that we must in no way allow the security standards applied currently to slip. We are confident that that will not happen with an OFRB approach, and we believe that the reforms we are proposing could make passengers in the air even more secure than they are today.

Bob Stewart: Training is crucial, and we have to ensure that it is as good as it possibly can be. Speaking as someone who has been involved in such security matters, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the real problem is that people lose focus if they do the job for a long time. Training can help with that. We must ensure that our training is good and that it includes keeping a focus on the job when it can sometimes become repetitive and boring.

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend makes a good point with which I completely agree. He also made an important point earlier, which is that some variation in the way security is delivered in different airports can assist in maintaining the highest standards of security, because it injects a further element of unpredictability, which can help us frustrate the evil intentions of those who would do us harm.
	In addition, we also see an advantage to the aviation industry of moving to a system that it can run more efficiently and, we hope, in a more passenger-friendly way. When we respond to the consultation on such security, we intend to provide as much detail as possible about how the new approach will work. I cannot support the proposal in new clause 3 for the Secretary of State to be obliged to require the approval of each House before such measures could come into force. I fear that that would slow down reform and could jeopardise our ability to respond swiftly to security threats. The Secretary of State intends to take forward the reformed approach to aviation security under powers in part II of the Aviation Security Act 1982.
	Part II gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions to industry for the purpose of protecting civil aviation against acts of violence. The Secretary of State's decision-making powers do not require the approval of Parliament before they can come into force. Changing that as proposed by the new clause could damage our ability to keep passengers secure. Directions from the Secretary of State often contain security-sensitive information which, if widely disclosed, could be used by people who mean to do us harm. Obtaining the approval of the House via secondary legislation inevitably takes time, even with the most efficient business managers in charge of Parliament’s agenda. Aviation directions sometimes have to be made quickly to respond to new
	threats—in some cases, within a matter of hours or days. For example, swift action had to be taken in response to the liquid bomb plot. If it had been necessary to recall Parliament so that the matters could be debated by both Houses it would have been impossible to respond effectively.
	The House will also recall the printer bomb plot in October 2010, when it was necessary to place emergency restrictions on air cargo very swiftly. If the Secretary of State had not been able quickly to ban certain consignments, it could have left us exposed to similar attacks. I am sure that the Opposition would not want that, so I hope that they will consider withdrawing the new clause.

John Woodcock: In our mind, there is no question at all that emergency provisions such as those introduced after the liquid bomb plot would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so I do not understand why the Minister is suggesting otherwise.

Theresa Villiers: I am afraid that that is how I interpret the new clause. There would be a serious risk that it would have that result, although I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has assured the House that that is not the intended outcome. He will appreciate that that would be damaging to our efforts to keep people safe.

Gavin Shuker: The new clause states:
	“An order under this section must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. ”
	There is nothing in the measure, as far as I can see, that would prevent the existing powers of the Secretary of State “to direct” from being taken away. It is more about the transition from one regime to another.

Theresa Villiers: That may be the Opposition’s intention, but I am advised that the effect could prevent the Secretary of State from taking swift action on the sort of plots that I have outlined.
	Turning to amendment 13, clause 82(3) requires the Secretary of State to consult the CAA before making a transfer scheme. Such a scheme would allow, for example, the transfer of relevant staff. I can assure the House that the Department has begun to work with the CAA on understanding how the transfer of staff and property to the regulator might impact on the delivery of the CAA’s functions, whether it is safety, economic regulation or new security functions. The Government’s priority is to ensure that our aviation security remains robust before, during and after the transfer to the CAA. We have begun work to assess the impact of the transfers, for example, to ensure that the CAA has access to the right information and knowledge on aviation security, and we are looking too at how best to integrate aviation security in the CAA, including synergies between safety and security. The CAA is considering how best to manage security at board level, as well as how it can be most effectively managed at operational level. We remain committed to ensuring that the CAA continues to conduct its regulatory functions to a high standard and that it fulfils its aviation security functions to an equally high standard. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments and new clause, because I do not think that they are necessary to deliver the outcomes that they are intended to secure.

John Woodcock: I will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will continue to look at the staffing issue raised by amendment 13, given our concerns about the potential for problems further down the track. The Minister has given clear reassurances on religious clothing and headwear, and I hope that the strength of feeling expressed in today’s debate will strengthen her hand in achieving the necessary requirements.
	On the issue of the parliamentary scrutiny of risk-based security, I continue to fail to see how our amendment could hold things up in an emergency, as the Minister suggests. We will withdraw the new clause, however. I simply urge the Government to continue to take the issue incredibly seriously, and to consider ways in which the House could properly scrutinise the issue, as and when she decides that a move would be appropriate and would enhance security. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4
	  
	Accounts and audits

‘(1) Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Accounts and audit) is amended as follows—
	(a) In subsection (1), leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	“(c) to send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the November following the accounting year to which the statement relates.”.
	(b) In subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	“(a) The National Audit Office shall examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received under subsection (1) and shall lay copies of the statement of accounts and its report thereon before each House of Parliament.”.
	(2) In the National Audit Act 1983, Schedule 4 (Nationalised Industries and Other Public Authorities) Part 1, leave out “Civil Aviation Authority”.’.—(Jim Fitzpatrick.)
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 5—CAA general financial duties
	‘In section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (General financial duties) after subsection (4) insert—
	“(5) It shall be the duty of the CAA to conduct its affairs in such a manner as to fulfil a general duty of efficiency in the use of its financial resources.”.’.
	Amendment 2,page2,line11, clause 1, after ‘economy’, insert ‘, effectiveness’.
	Amendment 1,page3,line8, clause 2, after ‘economy’, insert ‘, effectiveness’.
	Government amendments 14, 15 and 19.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I do not expect to detain the House for very long on the new clauses, as they are primarily probing, but we are interested in Government amendment 19, which deals with clause 77. The apostrophe and full
	stop in the amendment look very curious indeed, and we look forward to receiving an explanation of their significance.
	In Committee, the Minister teased us about our change of position on the Pilling report and on our support for National Audit Office oversight of the CAA. We said, in justification, that the world had moved on, and that evidence was coming forward, particularly from the British Air Transport Association at that time, in respect of the Government’s explanation of the CAA’s audit arrangements. BATA stated that it in fact involved a normal company audit to ensure that there was no fraud, whereas we were proposing an NAO audit examination of efficiency and value for money.
	Only this week, Members will have seen the correspondence from Virgin Atlantic citing the example of the Financial Services Authority. The CAA will be run along similar lines to the FSA. Although the NAO is tasked with keeping track of taxpayers’ money, it has oversight of the FSA, which receives no income from the taxpayer. The CAA will be in the same position. There are clear parallels between the two organisations, so why will the NAO not have oversight of the CAA as well?Other industry-funded regulators are subject to NAO oversight, including Ofgem, which is funded by the energy companies, Ofwat, which is funded by the water companies, and Ofcom, which is funded by broadcasters, the media and communications providers. We are trying to address that anomaly in new clause 4.
	Moving on to new clause 5, the Minister stated in Committee that she had written to the leadership of the CAA to say that she expected it to
	“lead the Authority in such a way that it: is run efficiently and effectively, thereby minimising the cost on the aviation sector, and providing value for money”.––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 344.]
	We received evidence at the time, however, from British Airways, which stated that
	“the CAA has scope to make significant improvements in efficiency”.––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 342.]
	That statement was referring to the CAA before it got its new powers and responsibilities, which placed even greater pressure on it. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raised this matter in Committee several times, and they might well try to catch your eye again today, Madam Deputy Speaker, in order to reinforce the point.
	In Committee, the Minister pointed out the technical flaws in our original amendment, so we have tidied it up. We have taken her advice and ensured that the new clauses are more appropriately worded. She also said that she would reflect on the matters that we had raised in Committee, and we would be grateful if she would share her conclusions with the House today.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Before I start, may I say in passing how much I admire the rulings of the Chairman of Ways and Means? He is a great gentleman and I apologise for having been told off by him earlier.
	The Minister will know that I raised in Committee one point about regulation. As she will recall, I raised the concerns of a very big business and a large industry
	in my constituency—DHL and the industry trade body, the Association of International Courier  Express Services—about the information provisions. I thanked the Minister then and I thank her now for the positive comments she made about the express services sector. As she acknowledged, DHL is a very significant employer in my constituency, and obviously a key player in the wider UK exports market.
	As the Minister knows, the express sector as a whole is broadly supportive of the Bill and wants to work with the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that the security aspects are implemented effectively and in consultation with all stakeholders. However, AICES members are concerned that express services have been incorporated into the information on services provisions, which they feel are not appropriate to the sector.
	First, express services operate in a different and a very competitive marketplace, and failure to provide the necessary information to their customers would simply result in those customers moving their account. It is a very fluid market indeed. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, this is mainly a business-to-business sector rather than a business-to-consumer sector, which makes it very different from passenger traffic on airlines. In consequence, the level of regulation required is also very different. I know that the Minister has acknowledged this key difference in the sectors being regulated—between air passenger traffic and express—and it would be helpful to know whether she believes that the CAA shares her views.
	Secondly, as I said in Committee, Ofcom already has the relevant powers on the provision of information on express services under the enabling provisions of the Postal Services Act 2011. I was concerned about a possible duplication here. The enabling provisions under section 51 of the 2011 Act could further extend to cover under subsection (3)(d)
	“the information that is to be made available by postal operators to users of their services about service standards and about the rights of those users”,
	and under subsection (3)(e)
	“anything else appearing to OFCOM to be necessary to secure effective protection for those users.”
	That is effectively duplicated in information terms in the Bill. Under this particular section, express services constitute postal operators.
	Ofcom has judged that there has been no market failure in the provision of information and that the powers in the Act are not required to be used at present. They are still there, however, so conferring the CAA with the same powers will lead to regulatory duplication. Existing legislation already provides for the required “future-proofing” that we talked about so much in Committee.
	Finally, but crucially, the express sector is different from air passenger traffic because the mode of transport is not relevant to the consumer. The key factor is the time required to get a package from A to B. How it gets there is completely irrelevant. Most of the time it will be done by air in this particular sector, but sometimes it will be done by truck—and sometimes, perhaps, on public transport. Obviously, the same cannot be said for
	air passengers unless they are unfortunate enough to land on the wrong runway at Heathrow and want to get to terminal 4. That fact means that the consumer would expect Ofcom, not the CAA, to be the relevant regulator. Making the CAA the regulator for the provision of information services in the express sector would be confusing, and unlikely to bring any benefits to consumers.
	I hope that the Minister will comment, will look again at the issue, and will perhaps even consider meeting me, along with representatives of the Association of International Courier  Express Services, to discuss the association’s legitimate concerns.

Graham Stringer: Amendments 2 and 1—that is the order in which they appear on the selection list—may be considered to be either relatively minor or the most important amendments to the Bill, depending on how they are interpreted.
	This is the “minor” aspect. I asked in Committee why the word “effectiveness” was not included in clause 1(3)(c) and clause 2(4)(c), along with the words “economy” and “efficiency”. The Minister’s responses are always very courteous and comprehensive, but on this occasion, unusually, I was not satisfied that there was a good reason for the absence of the word “effectiveness”.
	When I was more centrally involved in local government, we regularly spoke to the Audit Commission. It used to refer to the “three E’s”—effectiveness, efficiency and economy—and used to joke that “economy” was usually left out. That is not surprising in view of the dictionary definitions of all three words. “Effectiveness” apparently means
	“to accomplish the purpose, producing expected results.”
	The meaning of “efficiency” is self-evident:
	“performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort”.
	Those are clear and relatively objective terms. “Economic”, however, is defined as
	“pertaining to the production, distribution, and use of income, wealth, and commodities.”
	It is a much more general term, and it is the one that the Audit Commission used to say was left out. Why on earth do clauses 1 and 2 not state that the holders of licences should be effective, which is surely very important? Although I consider that to be the relatively minor aspect of the amendments, it goes to the heart of the Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, although the Bill gives the CAA new responsibilities to look after the interests of consumers, it does not tell us either how that is to be done or what the consumer’s interests are.
	The Bill states that the CAA must oversee airports to ensure that there is continuity, and that air transport services have regard to
	“the range, availability, cost and quality of airport operation services.”
	That in itself is fair enough, but the Bill does not give the CAA the overarching purpose of improving aviation and ensuring that it continues to form a major part of the United Kingdom economy.
	Our demand for the inclusion of the word “effectiveness” highlights the strong deficiency in the Bill that we debated in Committee. No real political controversy is involved in changing the nature of the functions of the
	CAA, whether we are talking about the regulation of air space or the ensuring of economy and safety. That is not a matter of great debate between the parties. There is a great debate between Members and parties, however, about how aviation should develop and whether we should continue to be a leading country in aviation, and about whether our economy, which depends on aviation, should be hindered by not having the aviation facilities we deserve. I could make a very long speech about these matters. I shall not do so, but I do want to make a few important points.
	I believe that many Conservative Members, and many members of the Government, want to improve our aviation facilities, including by increasing the capacity of airports in south-east England. Unfortunately however, they are caught in a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. Indeed, there are two tails. Dogs with two tails are usually known to be particularly happy, but not in this instance. There is the Lib Dem tail, as the Lib Dems have for historical—and, I think, mistaken—reasons always opposed increasing airport capacity in south-east England. The Government tail is also being wagged by Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London, who believes he can only win the mayoral election by opposing the expansion of airports within the London system, and by proposing instead an absurd island airport in far east London—in the Thames estuary, in fact. That may be good for his chances in the mayoral election, but it is extremely bad for the country.

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s policy on airport capacity is not driven by tails or dogs or anything like that. It is driven by an understanding of the importance of ensuring that aviation has the space to grow, but also that it does so within parameters that address the local impacts of aviation, such as aircraft noise and air quality, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, can be corrosive. We also need aviation to play its part in our efforts to tackle climate change. Our approach is, and always will be, based on a sound and sensible assessment of the evidence on how best to have a growing aviation industry that also plays its part in addressing its environmental impacts.

Graham Stringer: The Minister makes a consistent case on that, but she will not be surprised to learn that I do not accept it. The noise around airports is diminishing as planes get quieter, and air quality is regulated by European regulations, with most of the pollution around airports being caused by cars and other road traffic. That needs to be dealt with, but the levels are set by European regulations, and those levels cannot be surpassed.
	Those arguing against increasing airport capacity often say that that will help in our commitments to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As we demonstrated in Committee however, that is not the case, because as a result passengers on intercontinental journeys often have to fly via other countries, so they have to take off twice, which produces extra pollution and extra carbon dioxide.
	If the Government carry through their intention to put aviation into the European emissions trading scheme, as with the polluter on the ground, aviation will be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis, so we do not need an extra domestic policy to address the issue. The Government’s current policy is strangling the British economy.

Angie Bray: It is absolutely true that Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, has always opposed the third runway at Heathrow. I live in west London and represent a west London seat, and he is right to do so given the threat a third runway would pose to the health of west Londoners. Ken Livingstone, the Labour party candidate, has also always opposed expansion at Heathrow airport. Indeed, this is one of the few topics on which all three main parties in the London mayoral campaign agree.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Lady is right in what she says, but all three mayoral candidates are wrong on this matter.
	It is completely legitimate for any constituency MP, including the Secretary of State, to oppose what they think their constituents do not want. However, it is also incumbent on any Government to consider the national interest, not just the interest of people representing west London. Exactly the same argument is used about High Speed 2, and the analogy is a good one. I chair the all-party group on high speed rail, but if somebody was driving High Speed 2 through my constituency, I would oppose it, because I would like to carry on being an MP and representing my constituents. That is a reasonable thing for an MP to do, but I also know that HS2 is good for the economy. Similarly, I know that constraining runway capacity in the south-east is extremely bad for the economy. It will do no good for the environment; it will just strangle the British economy.

Mark Reckless: The hon. Gentleman implies that there may be a tension between a constituency interest and the national interest, but the Government’s policy and the Conservative party’s policy of being against a third runway at Heathrow precedes the previous Secretary of State. It has really been this Minister, when in opposition and in her current role, who has taken on the vested interests and put forward a policy that protects the environment, as well as the national interest. I do not believe that there is any relevant constituency interest here.

Graham Stringer: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him on a number of policies, but he is in error in his understanding of the history of the development of the Conservative party’s policy. To be fair to the Lib Dems, they have always opposed the third runway at Heathrow. The Conservative party was in favour of it until Boris Johnson thought he had a chance of winning the previous mayoral election—that changed its national policy. The Labour party was in favour of a third runway. When the Conservatives became the Government, the shadow Secretary of State said that she would change the Labour party’s policy—I do not agree with this, but I can see why she did it—so that there could be a discussion about how to deal with the problem facing us.
	That problem—this is the final point I wanted to make—is that Heathrow is losing destinations and business, and not just because of the capacity on runways. We face at least a double whammy; air passenger duty is having an effect, too. The situation is directing passengers to airports in Europe that have added extra runways, such as Madrid, to where British Airways has moved much of its operations, and Charles de Gaulle. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) was talking
	about integrators. The two main centres for freight in the aviation industry are Brussels and Charles de Gaulle; we have already lost out on those issues. Passengers are going to Madrid, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt, and, increasingly, to Copenhagen, at the expense of London. That is damaging not only the London economy, but the UK regions, because of the decreasing number of routes from the regional economies into Heathrow, in particular, and into the whole of the south-east system.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman has hit on a very pertinent point. Four countries in the world are expanding their economies at the moment and doing well: Brazil, Russia, India and China. Is not the hon. Gentleman’s point that if we want to increase our trading with those four countries, we need better airport contacts? Is that not the very issue on which we seem to be losing out?

Graham Stringer: I could not agree more. Before the debate, I looked up on the internet how many cities in China have a population of more than 1 million—the size of Birmingham. There are 160 cities that are bigger than or the same size as Birmingham and five cities that are bigger than London, three of which are not very well known. The biggest, Chongqing, has a population of 31.4 million, but how many air routes do we have to Chongqing? There are routes to Shanghai from London but from nowhere else in the UK. The others are Beijing, Guangzhou—or Canton, as most people would know it—and Tianjin. Those cities are all bigger than London and there are very few routes to them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned India, Brazil, Russia and China. This country wants to be the centre of the financial world through the City of London and, as Europe gets itself into a mess with deflation, our future must increasingly rely on trading with the growing economies of the world. However, at the same time, we are cutting off our links.

Theresa Villiers: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that he should not necessarily believe all the propaganda he reads in the posters in Westminster tube station. If flights to Hong Kong are taken into account, Heathrow delivers more services to China than any of its continental rivals. London is one of the best connected cities in the world. We have five highly successful airports serving the south-east, six if we count Southend.

Graham Stringer: Since the second world war, as the Minister will know, Heathrow has been the largest international airport in the world. Soon it will no longer be that. It is still bigger than Frankfurt as regards its international destinations, but—I do not have the figures in front of me—the number of destinations served by Heathrow has gone from something like 220 to 180. Increasingly, the passenger numbers are going up because larger aeroplanes are going to fewer and fewer destinations.
	I wanted to make both that small point about why the word “effective” is not in the first two clauses and the larger point that I would like not only for the words to be in the Bill but for there to be an effective aviation policy, which the Government do not have. On this issue, although not necessarily on others, the Government’s
	policies are anti-business and anti-growth. They are damaging the UK economy and they need to change them. Changing the wording of the Bill would help.

Mark Reckless: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). First, let me respond to what he said about Heathrow and China. We all see the adverts in Westminster tube station, but there is a fundamental inconsistency with the line being pushed by BAA and the Mayor of London, among others, that Heathrow is essential as a hub but that we do not have enough point-to-point flights to different places in China. The model used by BA and its oneworld alliance relies not just on Heathrow as a hub but on Hong Kong, too. It is deciding that it is more effective to use Hong Kong as a hub, for all the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman and others, and to fly to all those Chinese cities with greater frequency and service out of Hong Kong. I do not accept the argument that a lack of point-to-point flights from Heathrow to cities in China makes the case that Heathrow needs a third runway to be a hub airport. The very economies of the hub and of the Heathrow and Hong Kong dual hub model for service for China leads to the system that we have.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible point about where hubs develop in the world. Hubs developing in the middle east are doing a similar job in serving parts of China and there are also hubs in south-east Asia. A better measure of the failure of Government policy is the number of airlines that want to get into Heathrow from all parts of the world but cannot do so. A number of those airlines, some from China and some from other developing countries with large growth rates, have applied but cannot get their aeroplanes into Heathrow. Does he not agree that that is a better measure?

Mark Reckless: The reason there is unsatisfied demand for Heathrow and people who would like to fly from there but cannot, is that landing slots at Heathrow are still cheaper than those at other airports and certainly cheaper than they could be. BA uses most of those landing slots, has capitalised the value and does not sell many of them on, partly to ensure that there is only limited competition so it can maximise its profits. I will return to that point, but I have quite a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments that the regulator should look to ensure that licence holders—airports—are effective as well as economic and efficient.
	I also have considerable sympathy with the shadow Minister’s new clauses on National Audit Office oversight. However, I understand that those are only intended to be probing. I hope that that will also be the case with his amendments, because ultimately I trust the Minister on this issue. I do so for the ultimate reason that, in so many areas of public policy one can pretty much know what the policy will be by looking at where the money is—where the vested interests lie—and at what the civil servants are pressing. Too often Ministers merely oversee that policy solution. In this area I believe that it is the personal, political intervention of the Minister, both as shadow Secretary of State in opposition and now as Minister responsible for aviation policy, that led to, and kept, the Conservative policy against a third runway at Heathrow.

Gavin Shuker: Twice now the hon. Gentleman has referred to the blocking of a third runway as a policy, as in an aviation policy that could deliver some outcomes. Does he not accept that that is not a policy—it is just saying no?

Mark Reckless: No. I think we need a basket of options. I am delighted to hear that at Luton, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, there are such significant plans for expansion. At Gatwick, too, there is significant expansion, even of the one runway, and the possibility of a second runway from 2019. I wonder whether one option might be rail links between Heathrow and Gatwick and/or Luton, and whether the charges could pay for those. I am interested in hearing about the Northolt options and what the impact might be if Northolt were linked in to Heathrow. I very much believe that Birmingham airport, in terms of being half an hour from Old Oak Common or 40 minutes from Euston on High Speed 2, can become a very significant player in the south-east aviation market.

Pat Glass: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Reckless: I will finish the point, if I may. I do not understand why so much aviation demand from the north and the midlands has to come all the way down to Heathrow when, perhaps, Birmingham or Luton could satisfy much of that.

Gavin Shuker: All those potential options with different airports are hugely interesting. Unfortunately, we have not heard from the Government what their policy is—their strategy. The options have to fit into some kind of framework, and still as we speak, two years into the term of this Government, none exists.

Mark Reckless: The policy is for a south-east airports consultation. The previous Government sought to conduct such a consultation, and would not even consider as an option a second runway at Gatwick until I, along with Medway council, Kent county council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Essex county council, backed a judicial review which overturned that policy.

Pat Glass: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that now only two regional airports in this country have flights into Heathrow? Therefore, if we are travelling to New York, South Africa or Australia from the regions in this country, it is far easier to go to Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Schiphol. That is not good for Heathrow, it is not good for the British economy and it is certainly not good for business in the regions.

Mark Reckless: I strongly support our policy of promoting High Speed 2 for inter-regional transport within the UK. I recognise the value of transfer passengers at Heathrow for the provision of the network it has, but I do not ultimately see how it is a disaster for the British economy if some people from the regions transfer at a European hub for some flights, rather than always coming to Heathrow. What I would like to see at Heathrow is high value flights that produce the best outcome for the country as a whole. Having Heathrow operated effectively would be very sensible. It has significantly increased its landing charges in order to pay for the third runway and, under the quinquennial review,
	Heathrow-BAA has carried on raking in that money, even though it is not investing in the third runway that that money was meant to fund. I do not see how that makes sense.
	Most people refer to the CAA as a good and effective regulator, but how will it remain so? What certainty do we have about that? That is why a role for the NAO, expectations that it should be efficient in its management, and a role in ensuring the effectiveness of licence holders are, in principle, sensible things to ask for. I hope the Minister, the Department and in due course the CAA will listen to Members and ensure that those things happen.
	The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) about freight transport—that the consumer is indifferent to the mechanism used for that freight transport—may also apply to Heathrow. As an economist, my assessment is that the end user, the consumer of flight services through Heathrow, may be indifferent to the level of landing charges to the extent that the price of tickets is set by the scarcity and the monopolistic pricing at Heathrow, rather than on the basis of the cost of using Heathrow. Therefore, just as I previously suggested that there might be a great deal of investment in Heathrow, which could be good for consumers without pushing up prices for those end users, so, if the CAA were to be a flabby and inefficient regulator that was putting its own charges on the industry, it could potentially do that without the statutory constraint of acting in the interests of the users of those services.
	We have seen that the scarcity at Heathrow has become capitalised in the costs of slots. When they are traded, it can be £5 million or £10 million now per pair of take-off and landing slots, to the great benefit potentially of BA, but to who else’s benefit? That has happened not through a decision of the House, and not even through the development of the common law, but through the development of European jurisprudence in this area. There is very significant value there. The CAA could potentially transfer that value from BA to BAA with little, if any, impact on the consumer, or it could allow for significantly greater investment, or it could be quite flabby and inefficient or, to the extent that Government policy influences this and we have air passenger duty which is higher for the south-east or particularly higher for Heathrow, that might raise money to help the Government close the deficit, without having a negative impact on the users of Heathrow. All these are significant points that need to be considered, along with the value for money and the effectiveness propositions.
	I should like to address briefly the issues raised in Government amendment 19 in relation to the market power determination. I support the Bill and the Minister, and I will defer to her judgment on this, but I am nervous about the extent to which we are giving power to the CAA to make this market power determination. It used to apply to Manchester; it no longer does. I have heard arguments with respect to Stansted and to Gatwick as to why it should not apply. The risk with Stansted, I would have thought, is not so much that it would shove up the prices massively, but that Stansted may not be competing effectively with Heathrow as it would if it were under separate ownership.
	We have just heard comments about flights to Asia and emerging markets, but we have recently seen significant openings of routes into and out of Gatwick to places
	such as Vietnam and South Korea. There may be the prospect of significant further movement in that direction. But larger airlines—A380s and so on—currently do not have particularly good service at Gatwick, and it is difficult for Gatwick to invest to service the A380s and to have people transferring straight from the plane into the terminal, because of the significant cost involved and the need at least to bring along the current airline users of the airport and the great difficulty of putting through the investment if they are fighting it tooth and nail.
	If Gatwick feels that it should invest significant sums of money in better terminal facilities in order to service the A380s and that type of airline and allow the sorts of routes to high-growth markets in Asia that we so strongly support, I see no strong reason why it should be prevented from doing so and charging what the market will bear. I believe that that could be to the benefit of the consumer. The CAA might be a good regulator and take that into account, but at least the idea, in principle, of allowing freer competition and having less regulation and fewer airports with the market power determination—it is only really Heathrow where there is clearly substantial power—might lead to a more competitive system in which Gatwick and Stansted were free in the way Manchester now is. I am not certain, but it might do so. Under the Bill, it will now fall to the CAA to make that decision, unless this is reconsidered before the Bill is passed. I would like to pay my regards to the Minister and say that I trust her position on this and hope that the CAA will make the right decisions as well.

Theresa Villiers: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) for his kind words and contribution and all Members who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. I was grateful that the shadow Minister expressed an interest in amendment 19 and am delighted to talk the House through the Government amendments; like those in the previous group, they are very dull and technical.
	Amendment 14 rectifies a drafting omission in clause 63 by specifying that the functions captured by the references to “relevant 1998 Act functions” in clause 63 are the functions specified in clause 62(2). Amendment 15 enables further clarification of how clause 70 will operate. Clause 70 provides that two or more persons are joint operators of an airport where they jointly have overall responsibility for the management of all the area. It is important to be able to identify the operator or joint operators so that there is clarity about who is appropriately subject to regulation.
	Concern has also been expressed, for example by British Airways, that the test could draw some companies into the regulatory system in a way that is not intended, for example when an airline is involved in running the terminal from which its flights take off. Amendment 15 provides that the Secretary of State has the same powers to make regulations when two or more persons are to be treated as having overall responsibility for the management of an area, as she already has for sole operators under the Bill. If unforeseen problems emerge, further clarity could be provided by secondary legislation.
	On Government amendment 19, the intention of clause 77(5) is to exclude persons carrying out exempt Crown functions from economic regulation under chapters 1 and 3 of the Bill. The Bill already provides that the UK Border Force and the police, who currently carry out exempt functions on behalf of the Crown, are not subject to the prohibition on levying charges in clause 3. Amendment 19 ensures consistency, removing the possibility of the CAA being required, in response to a request under clause 7(2) to make a market power determination in respect of a core airport area operated by a person exercising exempt Crown functions. It also disapplies the requirement under clause 14(4) to treat persons carrying out exempt Crown functions as having applied for a licence if there is a positive market power determination.
	After the excitement of Government amendments, I now turn to new clause 4, which relates to the National Audit Office. I fully agree with Opposition Front Benchers and others about the need for the CAA to be efficient in carrying out its functions, but I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the NAO would deliver more effective scrutiny than the current mechanisms by which the CAA’s functions are audited and scrutinised.
	Moreover, the CAA is overwhelmingly funded by the aviation industry, whereas the NAO’s role is to scrutinise public spending on Parliament’s behalf, and the income the CAA receives from the industry is not classified as public spending. Parliament recognised that by removing the NAO’s role in 1984. As the shadow Minister acknowledged, the issue was considered by Sir Joseph Pilling in his 2008 review of the CAA. He concluded that there was no need for NAO involvement, and that recommendation was accepted by Ministers under the previous Government, and I have yet to see convincing reasons why they were wrong.
	There are other examples of industry-funded regulators that come under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office, as the shadow Minister said, but most either are non-ministerial Government departments or rely on Government funding for a significant amount of their income. Others, such as the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Rail Regulation, are funded by industries that receive or have received significant taxpayer support—distinguishing them, again, from the aviation sector, where such indirect taxpayer support is not present.
	To provide reassurance in response to the concerns that have been raised, I shall highlight the strength of the current scrutiny arrangements. The Secretary of State appoints the CAA’s external auditors; she presents the CAA’s accounts to Parliament by placing the annual report statement in the Library; she is involved in the development of the authority’s corporate plan; with the Treasury’s consent she approves the national loans and sets the CAA’s required rate of return on capital; and she will continue to approve the pay of the chairman and the non-executive members of the CAA board. That oversight, combined with the work of the CAA’s independent auditors, gives a strong incentive to secure value for money and offers accountability to Parliament.
	I also advise the House that the CAA has implemented the Pilling recommendation on establishing a programme of value-for-money audits. The CAA also consults on its charges and fees, giving stakeholders the opportunity
	to raise any concerns that they have—they are always robust in making their views known—and the Bill makes such consultation an explicit legal requirement.
	There are therefore already effective mechanisms in place to ensure that the CAA acts efficiently. As the shadow Minister said, however, when we considered a similar new clause in Committee, I undertook to reflect on these issues and whether additional reassurance could be given on them. I am therefore today announcing a change to the CAA’s accounting direction, which I hope will provide some further reassurance.
	Every year the DFT issues a report direction and an accounts direction to the CAA, specifying the matters that should be addressed in the authority’s annual report and accounts. The Secretary of State intends to make an addition to the accounts direction for 2013 and succeeding years which will for the first time require the CAA to include an efficiency statement in the annual report. The CAA has also agreed to do so for its activities in the current financial year.
	The efficiency statement will be subject to validation by the external auditors, whose statement in the annual report will contain a summary of their findings on it, and the Department for Transport will approve the terms of reference for this work. Industry representatives on the CAA’s finance advisory group will be given an opportunity to discuss the statement.
	One advantage of such action over the Opposition’s proposed change is that it strengthens the existing annual process of scrutiny, with transparency in relation to industry and to Parliament when the Secretary of State presents the accounts, whereas the NAO’s focus on the CAA would inevitably be less frequent than any annual one. Our approach also enables the CAA to continue to pursue value for money through the selection of its external auditor by tender.
	Although I agree with the Opposition about the sentiment of new clause 5, which would impose an explicit efficiency duty on the CAA, I think its adoption is unnecessary because the authority is already subject to such a duty in all but name. The CAA’s strategic plan contains the objective
	“to ensure that CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which meets Better Regulation Principles and gives value for money”
	Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 1 already require the CAA to carry out its economic regulation functions under part 1 of the Bill transparently, accountably, proportionately and consistently. To meet its statutory obligation to act proportionately and to target activity only on cases where it is needed, the CAA is obliged to act efficiently and to have regard for the costs and benefits of its activities.
	Moreover, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 provides that all statutory regulators
	“should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities”.
	The Secretary of State for Transport writes to the CAA chair setting objectives for its term, and the most recent such letter makes it very clear that the Government expect the CAA to operate efficiently and to minimise the cost to industry. That oversight, combined with the work of the CAA auditors, gives a strong incentive to
	secure value for money and offers accountability to Parliament. Over the past 10 years, the CAA has reduced its operating costs in real terms by more than 20%.
	I turn now to the points made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). I will not trespass on your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a broad-ranging discussion of aviation capacity, given that that was the subject of a new clause that was not selected, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take this issue seriously and that our approach on a third runway at Heathrow is driven by the evidence on the impact that such a project would have. We believe that it is essential to find an alternative way to meet the long-term capacity needs of the UK economy.
	Building a third runway at Heathrow would have a significant noise impact. People who live near Heathrow account for about 70% of the people in the UK and more than one in four of the people in Europe who are exposed to an average noise from airports of more than 55 dB. Thousands of people live with a plane going overhead every 90 seconds on a daily basis, not to mention the planes that wake them up at 4.30 in the morning. The quality-of-life impact of a third runway, which would mean 220,000 more flights every year over a densely populated part of London, would be significant. There is no technological solution in sight to ensure that planes will become quiet enough quickly enough to make the burden tolerable.

Brian H Donohoe: Just to put it on the record, is the Minister saying that there is no possibility of expansion at Heathrow or near Heathrow, say at Northolt?

Theresa Villiers: What I am saying is that we are opposed to a third runway and that we believe it is essential to protect the quality of life of the communities who would be affected by it.

Julian Huppert: Is the Minister aware of the paper by the Aviation Environment Federation for WWF UK on capacity across the country? It found that there was space for
	“a 52% growth in passengers”
	and a twofold increase in air traffic movements with existing capacity. Does that mean that there is less need for the expansions that the Opposition seem to be keen on?

Theresa Villiers: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential to make the best use of the existing capacity in the south-east and around the country. We will explore that in the process that we are undertaking on the future of our aviation capacity needs.

Gavin Shuker: I agree with the Minister that we need to make better use of the capacity that we have. Of course, Luton airport in my constituency has more capacity and we are willing to share it. Does she not accept that we have a problem in that there is no proper UK aviation hub at present?

Theresa Villiers: As I said, London is one of the most well connected cities in the world and arguably the most well connected. It has five or, depending on one’s definition,
	six successful international airports that serve our economy very well. We need this debate to be based on evidence, not on the propaganda that one reads on BAA posters.
	As I said, that matter is not, strictly speaking, germane to the motion, so before I try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will turn to amendments 1 and 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton. His intention is that “effectiveness” should be construed as spending wisely. Imposing such an obligation on the CAA could pull it into an inappropriate management role over regulated airports. I am sure that that is not his intention, given that he is rigorous in opposing disproportionate regulation.
	My concern is that it is one thing to specify an output that is required, but quite another to specify the manner in which the operator should meet that obligation. The Bill gives the CAA the power to ensure that airports with substantial market power do not impose unreasonable charges on their customers or exploit them. The amendment might oblige the CAA to start telling an airport how to run its business in the most effective way. That outcome would be disproportionate.
	The current wording in clause 1(3) is broadly understood by the stakeholders who are affected by the regime. Inserting the word “effectiveness” at this stage might undermine the clarity of the duties to which the CAA is subject, when clarity is one of the most important goals in the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is a staunch defender of the air freight industry, and it is always a pleasure to hear his contributions. I repeat the comments that I made in Committee about my admiration for the efficiency and success of that industry in the UK, and I reassure him again that in exercising its information powers in relation to the freight industry, the CAA is obliged to take a proportionate approach. The degree of intervention required in a business-to-business market may be less than is appropriate in the consumer market, and I am sure the CAA will take that on board in ensuring that it takes a proportionate approach.
	I am sure that Ofcom and the CAA will take care to avoid regulatory overlap. We do not believe that there is a significant danger of that, but there are ways to deal with such risks if they emerge in future, for example through memorandums of understanding. My hon. Friend also asked whether I would be happy to meet representatives of the air freight industry, and I would be delighted to do so.
	I hope that the Opposition will not press the new clause and amendments, but if they do, I must ask the House to vote against them.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We are very grateful to the Minister for her reassurances, and we certainly welcome the strengthening of the auditing arrangements for the CAA that she has outlined. We will be very keen to get the views of those who lobbied all the members of the Public Bill Committee to ensure that the CAA became even more efficient. From her explanation, it sounds as
	though it has been recognised that it needs strengthening. With the reassurances that she has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6
	  
	Compensation for noise pollution

‘The CAA must ensure that airport operators establish and implement a scheme to compensate persons residing in or occupying business or community premises in an area designated in the licence conditions for the noise pollution arising from activities within the airport area, including the landing and taking off of aircraft.’.—(Seema Malhotra.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Seema Malhotra: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 3, in clause 1,page2,line17, after ‘Chapter’, insert—
	‘(ea) the need to work with NATS, the Secretary of State, the Committee on Climate Change and air transport service providers towards meeting the United Kingdom’s greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations as set out in the UK’s Carbon Budget, including the UK’s share of international aviation emissions’.
	Amendment 4,page2,line17, after ‘Chapter’, insert—
	‘(ea) the effect on the environment and on local communities of activities connected with the provision of airport operation services and air transport services at the airport to which the licence relates,’.
	Amendment 5, in clause 2,page3,line10, leave out ‘and’ and insert—
	‘(ca) the effect on the environment and on local communities of activities connected with the provision of airport operation services and air transport services at the airport to which the licence relates, and’.
	Amendment 7, in clause 83,page51,line22, at end insert—
	‘(d) greenhouse gas emissions resulting from both domestic flights and flights to European Union Member States, with greenhouse gas emissions for an equivalent journey via rail or coach.’.
	Government amendment 16.
	Amendment 6,in clause 84, page52,line11, at end insert—
	‘(d) greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of international air transport services from a civil airport and domestic air transport services to or from a civil airport.’.

Seema Malhotra: The new clause is intended to ensure that airport operators establish and implement a noise pollution compensation scheme for residents and organisations around an airport.
	I welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to address the environmental impact of aviation, which the Minister has expressed on many occasions. In Committee, I moved an amendment with similar intentions to those behind the new clause. I asked the Minister about the possibility of adding to the Bill a provisional compensation scheme for noise arising out of licensed activities affecting persons residing in, or occupying business or community premises in, an area designated in the licence conditions.
	The Minister responded that the meaning of “licensed activities” was not entirely clear, and that if I intended to refer to the definition of airport operation services as licensed activities in clause 68, the amendment could not be accepted, as the clause expressly excluded air transport services from that definition. She added that a more substantive reason for her opposition to the amendment was that she believed that
	“environmental protection measures should not depend on whether an airport happens to be subject to economic regulation. If there is a case for environmental regulation, this should depend on the airport’s environmental impact, regardless of whether the airport happens to have substantial market power and fall within the scope of the economic regulation framework set out in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2012; c. 216.]
	New clause 6 is intended to deal with some of those issues.
	We all recognise the need for aviation to support our economy and the vital importance of airports in providing local employment. I may well recognise that more than many others, as my constituency borders Heathrow airport, which supports more than 110,000 local jobs—approximately 22% of total local employment—and provides gross value added of £5.3 billion. It is a vital national economic asset, but for Hounslow’s quarter of a million residents and the residents of neighbouring boroughs, the daily environmental impact of Heathrow includes flights overhead every 60 seconds. The majority of the borough is located within the 55 dB(A) Lden aircraft noise contour.
	New clause 6 has the support of my local authority—the London borough of Hounslow—and of neighbouring MPs. In essence, it seeks provision relating to a compensation scheme for noise pollution. The measure would support local residents, business and community premises to be insulated according to a formula based on geographic zone or noise level, which could be decided or kept under review by the Secretary of State as a minimum level of the airport’s responsibility to its local area.
	All hon. Members know that noise impacts on health and well-being. That debate continues. For example, the secondary analysis of the London Heathrow sample of children from the RANCH project—the EU project on road traffic and aircraft noise exposure and children’s cognition and health—examined the effects of daytime aircraft noise exposure at home and at school. It concluded that aircraft noise exposure at school had a significant effect on children’s cognitive development, and that schools needed to be an important focus for the protection of children from aircraft noise.
	I have drawn on examples from my local area, but aircraft and aviation noise is a national issue that affects neighbourhoods in every airport location. The good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health benefits from the European Environment Agency states that 27% of people in the 55 dB(A) Lden areas are highly annoyed by aircraft noise, and there are implications for irritation, anxiety and stress. However, one set of stakeholders whose needs are not sufficiently well recognised or reflected in the Bill or the CAA’s environmental consultation documents is local residents who live around airports and are exposed to aircraft and other noise that results from licensed activities such as aircraft taking off and landing and surface transport.
	The CAA is the regulator of aviation activity in the UK, but its responsibility for the environmental impact of aviation continues to be the subject of debate, not least today. The new clause seeks to ensure that the CAA has authority to help to control the effects of noise and the quality of insulation and noise mitigation schemes that each of the major UK airports operates in the interests of local residents and the local work force. The idea is particularly relevant in respect of a change in our airport infrastructure that could mean multiple operators at a single airport. That could result in confusion on who has responsibility.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady makes an interesting argument. Will she help me by saying how many people and premises would need to be given compensation according to the new clause?

Seema Malhotra: That is an interesting point. I have mentioned that compensation could be determined by geographical zone or noise level. In Hounslow, all households have been assessed, as have households further afield, on where they sit within the noise contours. That minimum standard should be kept under review. If a person has had access to insulation measures in the past, they might not need them again, notwithstanding any new developments. We know that the third runway is off the agenda, but we should not have such conversations only as part of a new planning application on a new development; the matter should be kept under review all the time.
	The idea is not without precedent. For American airports, airport-related noise-insulation schemes are not only regulated but administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. The UK, on the other hand, has implemented only a voluntary system of noise insulation for communities affected by aircraft noise. In Heathrow’s case, BAA administers a voluntary scheme that provides noise insulation grants. There is a review of its adequacy and we await the results of the response.
	In Committee, I welcomed the CAA’s reporting of environmental impacts, and I do so again here, because it will lead to greater consistency in monitoring and a more robust evidence base to support a dialogue between local authorities and airports. However, residents who live near airports need clarity about who will be responsible for negotiating with local authorities and the formula under which different operators may have different levels of responsibility.
	In my initial amendment in March, we argued that, in addition to a passive reporting role, the CAA’s role should include those of adviser and referee—although not necessarily of policeman and woman, as referred to by the Minister—and that the airport operators’ responsibilities to communities should be clearly referred to as part of the licence conditions under which they operate. That would help to provide greater clarity about, and consistency in, the principles of noise mitigation schemes, which may vary, as needs vary, across the country. Clear minimum standards should be set, however, and local authorities given the tools and support needed to negotiate effectively for the needs of their local communities.
	A process should also be in place to help if there is disagreement between airports and communities. I understand that the Minister might disagree with our
	proposal, but currently there appears to be no clear route for compensating for and minimising noise pollution, other than what has been the case under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which gives the Transport Secretary powers to regulator noise. That has tended to focus on night flights and to be implemented on a voluntary basis, but it does not give adequate protection to local residents and is not future proof. In the future, the situation might be different, so we need a process and some form of regulation to guarantee the rights of local communities.

Julian Huppert: Those who served in Committee will know that I am passionate about environmental concerns and their effect on the aviation industry.
	We should remember that air travel is a wonderful thing: air freight is great, it benefits business and tourism, and allows families to keep in touch. There are wonderful aspects to air travel, but it also has damaging consequences, such as noise, as we have just heard. It affects those who live nearby. Roughly one quarter of those in Europe affected by heavy aircraft noise live under the Heathrow flight path in London. It also has huge effects on the environment. Carbon dioxide and a range of other contaminants are released as a result of aviation. This is a huge, international problem that does not only affect, and cannot only be controlled in, the UK. As the former chief scientific adviser to the previous Government, Professor Sir David King, said, climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind. Aviation is a large and growing component of that, and is one that is particularly poorly dealt with around the world.
	We need a balance between aviation and reducing the harm it does. The CAA is already doing some work and is better now than it was a couple of years ago at taking account of environmental issues. I very much welcome that. However, I would not like to see what we heard earlier about trying to provide as much as is demanded. I am pleased that new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), was not selected. It would lead to unlimited growth and expansion, which would be extremely worrying for us all. I hope to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that Labour dissociates itself from such a policy, but if not, we must assume that it supports it. I look forward to hearing the answer.
	The policy in new clause 1 would, however, be consistent for a party that pushed for the third runway at Heathrow and the second runway at Stansted, despite the fact that the latter is operating at about only 50% of its capacity—what it really wants is a better railway line. That policy would lead to mass expansion and mass destruction around the world. And it is simply not needed. The Committee on Climate Change has come up with a climate budget for how much we can afford to increase by. It estimates that it can cope with a 60% increase in passenger numbers by 2050. Conveniently enough, as I referred to earlier, the Aviation Environment Federation did some work for WWF UK showing that existing capacity will give us 52% increases by 2050—almost the same the figure, but then we do not know exactly how big the planes will be. A number of airports are already able to use bigger planes—Stansted is already set up to use A380 aeroplanes, which are code F, I think—so
	there is simply no need for the vast expansion that was pushed for by the Labour Government. Indeed, a number of Labour MPs still seem to be pushing for it. It would be great to have some clarity on exactly what the Opposition’s position is, as their Front Benchers seem to differ from their Back Benchers.
	I was quite taken by the comments we have heard about noise pollution generally. I was interested in the numbers, because I am concerned about how such a scheme could work. I have to say that I am not persuaded that I understand how it could operate, although I would be happy to hear what is said later and see whether I can be persuaded. For example, HACAN Clear Skies—from the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—estimates that about 1 million people are currently affected by noise under the Heathrow flight path, which would clearly impose too big a load when it comes to serious compensation. I would be happy if there were some way of developing further some semblance of that concept, but I am not persuaded. If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) puts new clause 6 to a vote, I am afraid I will not support her, although I recognise where the idea comes from and I find it an interesting one.

Seema Malhotra: In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about how we might determine such a scheme, there are existing processes in place, which operators such as BAA use to measure where the noise is greatest, so that they can then respond with a proportionate scheme. I see no reason why that principle could not be applied to something more comprehensive in future.

Julian Huppert: I hear with interest what the hon. Lady says, although if that is already happening, I am not quite sure what her new clause would achieve. Perhaps a worked example to give some sense of the numbers and costs involved would make the case more persuasive for me. Perhaps there will be time later—at a future date, as the Bill progresses—to understand exactly what is proposed. I would personally be interested to understand that, but at the moment I do not feel I have enough of a handle on it to support the hon. Lady’s proposal.

Graham Stringer: I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman and I are likely to agree on this, but I would like to understand his position a little more thoroughly. Is it his contention that constraining capacity in the south-east will reduce the number of flights, or will it in fact increase the number of flights—as is my contention—as people fly to other European hubs?

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we will agree on very little in this area, other than on the fact that we will disagree quite strongly. At the moment, we have a number of people travelling to the south-east, by road and all sorts of other means, in order to fly out. We can use some of the capacity in other areas, in the north. My contention is that by not expanding capacity in the way the previous Government wanted to, we will see less environmental degradation and we will better be able to stay within our carbon budget, which we can afford for the good of the rest of the world as well as ourselves. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree on this one, however many times we discuss it.
	Turning to the amendments that deal with environmental issues, let me be clear what I would like to see. I would like to see lower emissions at every airport in the country. Some of that can be done technologically. Planes are coming out that are more and more efficient, which I very much welcome. I have mentioned some of the excellent work being done by Rolls-Royce, and some research has been done in my constituency specifically to enable that, which I very much welcome. I would also like to see more public understanding of the effects of climate change, and of what aviation does and how it compares with other things. I would also like to see some certainty that airports will be able to reclaim when they implement environmental measures—a point was made very clear to me by AirportWatch, along with others concerned about a lack of certainty.
	We had a number of discussions in the Public Bill Committee about the exact nuances of the amendments and their technical aspects. It is important to get things right for the longer term, rather than jumping to agree to half-baked or 99%-baked amendments. Although I recognise the spirit in which the shadow Minister will, I presume, be pressing some of his amendments, I do not think we are quite there yet. I hope that he will accept that concern, and I am sure he will take a different line when we come round to it.
	Amendment 3 is definitely much improved. I am much more persuaded by it, but there is still the problem that it would apply only to the regulated airports. I am sure that the shadow Minister would accept that that is a concern, and if we could do something that affected all airports, that would go further—I will return to that point later. The same thing applies to amendment 7. I find it an interesting amendment, and I would be supportive of it, were it not for the fact that clause 84 already requires the same information to be published—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. That information should be published, as clause 84 says, so we do not need to move it to clause 83 merely to solve a problem. In Committee, I praised the Minister’s environmental credentials. She turned her party towards the Liberal Democrat position of supporting high-speed rail and opposing a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Stansted. She did a good job, and I again pay tribute to her. She made strong arguments that were more persuasive for Conservatives than those that we made.
	It is not clear that the Opposition have made that leap, and I seek clarity as to why many Labour Back Benchers argued against the position adopted by shadow Ministers and why they are still hung up on providing more capacity and more runways across the south-east. When I raised that with the Minister she agreed to look further at what environmental benefits could be achieved. I am grateful to her for doing so, and for the time that she has spent with me discussing the matter. She understands quite well what I am trying to achieve.
	My ideal is something that has not yet been included in the Bill, because there are some problems with the wording of my proposal, which was recommended by the Aviation Environment Federation. In paragraph 31 of its submission to the Bill Committee, it said that what it would most like to see was an
	“amendment to section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to clarify that CAA has a duty to the general public, rather than only to the
	aviation industry or its consumers, and that environmental impacts are as important a determinant of aviation policy as consumer demand”.
	That is something that I would love to see. I understand that there are some technical problems with the precise wording of the proposal, which is why I have not been able to table a detailed amendment that I could persuade the Government to accept. I should like to get these things right for the longer term, rather than put on a small show now. However, I hope that such a proposal would be considered, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether there is any prospect of her doing so.
	A key issue made clear to me by AirportWatch and others was the need for certainty for airports. We all agree that we do not want any predatory airlines—I will not suggest any that might fall into that category—to exploit a lack of clarity to avoid paying what we all believe they should pay towards environmental improvements at airports. I believe that the Minister has received legal advice that the Bill provides such certainty, but I hope that she accepts the concern expressed by AirportWatch, the AEF, others and me that there is a lack of clarity. If there is a risk that the Bill is not absolutely water-tight legally, I hope that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to ensure that we do not encounter that problem, as we all agree that we do not want to have that concern. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.
	How do we achieve the overall environmental progress that we would like? I believe that the Government will shortly publish a draft aviation policy framework. We expected them to publish it in March, but it has taken time to get it right. We welcome the fact that such work has been undertaken, and I hope that the framework looks at the possibility of environmental regulation across all airports. That would be the best solution, rather than fitting the measure into one particular route, and applying it only to regulated airports. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the aviation policy framework, which we all anticipate with great excitement, will deal with those environmental concerns.
	There is a prospect of the Bill doing some very good things by improving the information flow and making the CAA more aware, and by making sure that we deal with risks to airports. I hope that the aviation policy framework will offer a visionary solution that ensures that we have a sustainable aviation future.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who will not be surprised to learn that he features quite strongly in the opening passage of my speech. I perceive that he has an eye problem, and I am sorry if that is the case. I hope that he is not in too much discomfort: we would not wish to see anyone in pain.
	This is probably the key debate of the afternoon, because the subject of whether an environmental duty should be included in the Bill invited the most disagreements in Committee. The amendments take account of our discussions in Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Cambridge for their advice on drafting amendments, and to the Minister for the guidance that the Government have given to the Opposition about how to address those issues.
	In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said of the hon. Member for Cambridge:
	“He seems to be arguing for an environmental duty, but he does not like the amendment.”
	No change there, then. The hon. Gentleman does not like these proposals either. My hon. Friend went on:
	“He has not tabled any amendments of his own”—
	the hon. Gentleman was having difficulty writing one in Committee, and he is still having difficulty six weeks later—
	“but he is looking for the Minister to come up with an alternative. Is that correct?”
	The hon. Member for Cambridge replied:
	“That is an extremely good summary of my position. I would like to see an environmental duty and I hope we will be able to work across all parties to find one that delivers the aims that we share. I have faith in the Minister’s ability to find that.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 119]
	Sadly, no such measure has arrived today, so he is going to have to wait.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge criticised our proposal in Committee, just as he has done today. At that time, he said:
	“First, it does not mention what the shadow Minister himself mentioned at the beginning of his speech—the Committee on Climate Change. It is a great shame that the amendment does not talk about working with it; it advises the Government on setting and meeting carbon budgets and has already done a huge amount of work.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 117.]
	The hon. Gentleman went on, rightly, to congratulate the Committee on Climate Change. I am sure that most Members would do the same. I would have hoped that our new amendment 3 would adequately address the points that the hon. Gentleman was raising.
	A key recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change’s report on international aviation and shipping, which was published this month, states:
	“Our report concludes that international aviation and shipping emissions need to be formally included in carbon budgets. Emissions from these sectors were initially left out of carbon budgets…when the Climate Change Act became law. However, they have been informally included in the 2050 target…Under the Act, a decision on the inclusion…is required by the end of 2012. Formal inclusion of these emissions will ensure a more transparent, comprehensive and flexible accounting framework under the Climate Change Act and provide more certainty for the future.”
	I would have hoped that amendment 3, which now makes reference to the Committee on Climate Change and to greenhouse gas emissions, would cover the points that the hon. Gentleman was unhappy with in Committee. Amendments 4 and 5 cover issues similar to those that were so ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for praising my consistency. I have made the same arguments throughout our proceedings. As I think I said earlier, the amendment that he has tabled today is a significant improvement on the one that he tabled in Committee. I think that we agree on the reasons for that. Does he accept, however, that it would still affect only the economically regulated
	airports, and not all of the rest of them? Does he accept that that is a genuine concern for those of us who wish to see the environmental regulation of all airports?

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is almost breathtaking that, when we are proposing an environmental duty that would cover the busiest airport in the UK, the hon. Gentleman should say, “No, let’s not do that. Let’s wait till we get Southend right.” That just does not make sense. We are arguing for the introduction of an environmental duty now. He is arguing that, although he wants one, this one just does not fit the bill. I was not praising him for his consistency, by the way, and just because he is consistently wrong does not mean that I agree with him.

Theresa Villiers: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to lecture my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on consistency. In theory, Labour opposes a third runway, yet every time one of its Back Benchers mentions the subject, they tend to be very supportive of the idea.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Minister knows full well that the shadow Secretary of State made our position on the third runway quite clear when she invited Members to attend cross-party talks on the subject. To date, as far as I am aware, my hon. Friend has not even had an answer from the Secretary of State. Our position is clear.

Julian Huppert: rose —

Jim Fitzpatrick: I want to make some progress, given that other colleagues want to speak in the debate.
	In Committee, the Minister said of environmental requirements:
	“Such requirements should come with the sanction of Parliament and Ministers, rather than being delegated to the CAA in its capacity as economic regulator.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 28 February 2012; c. 137.]
	It is our view, however, that the CAA should have an environmental duty, given the new powers and duties that it is taking on. Why is no such duty being proposed? We would have put an environmental duty in the Bill. The initial drafting included an environmental duty, although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cambridge would have supported that one.
	In March 2009, the Secretary of State for Transport—then Geoff Hoon—brought together the Pilling and Cave recommendations in a parliamentary statement. He said:
	“I want economic regulation to be targeted, flexible and efficient. I am therefore proposing the introduction of a licence-based scheme of regulation similar to that which exists in other regulated sectors.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 5WS.]
	In the other regulated sectors, the statutory duties for the Office of Rail Regulation, for example, include
	“to have regard to the effect on the environment of activities connected to the provision of railway services”.
	For Ofgem, they include
	“to have regard to the effect on the environment of activities connected to the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity”—
	and it is the same for Ofgas and Ofwat. These regulators have environmental duties.

Theresa Villiers: It is important for the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the difference with those bodies is that a universal jurisdiction applies across an entire sector or industry, whereas we are dealing with a situation in which economic regulation applies only to a few airports. That is why this is not the appropriate or right way to deliver environmental regulation.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I hear what the Minister says. In our Committee discussions, those we are having today and in discussions outside, transport consistently appears as a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation continues to grow. In a recent speech, I believe to The Times transport conference, the Minister quoted the statistics showing that transport will year on year out to 2030 and beyond make a bigger contribution to those emissions, simply because the sector is growing. It cannot be right not to address the question of having an environmental duty at a time when we are we are introducing the new powers and duties and the new regulatory authority through the Bill. Surely now is the appropriate time for it.

Julie Hilling: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the majority of the Bill deals with economic regulation of some airports, it also includes other measures, such as those on security, that affect all airports? It is thus a little disingenuous to say that the Bill cannot include environmental duties on those grounds.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree that seeking to place an environmental duty in the Bill is in no way inappropriate. We think it is entirely in keeping with the new powers to confer on the CAA a duty to take cognisance of the environmental impact of aviation.
	Concerns were raised in Committee about the inclusion of the regulatory asset base, and the Gatwick Express was mentioned, along with other aspects. The Opposition believed that stronger powers were needed—and that they were needed on the face of the Bill.
	We ask the question once again: why is there no environmental duty for the CAA as a regulator? The Government say that they want to be “the greenest Government ever”—fine words. The Minister proudly says that she will “yield to no one” on environmental protection. I congratulate her on that, as these are more fine words. The Lib Dems say that we were not tough or focused enough and that our words were not appropriate—more fine words, if they mean anything. The time to take action, however, is now, because we have the opportunity to do so now.
	With new clause 6 and amendment 7, we think that seeking to inform passengers about the environmental impact is wholly appropriate. The Minister agreed with the principle when she said that she shared with Opposition members of the Committee
	“the goal of harnessing consumer power in our efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation.”—[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 314.]
	We all know that the tools exist commercially. Travel companies produce information on the environmental impact of different modes of transport, and this is advocated by the Department for Environment, Food and
	Rural Affairs and by the Department of Energy and Climate Change—so why not by the Department for Transport?
	We heard powerful evidence in Committee to suggest that passenger choice is not based on green issues—if that were the case, it would be welcome—but on the location of the airport, whether it serves their destination and on the convenience of getting there, as well, of course, as the cost. It not based on the environment, but the environment does matter, and it will matter increasingly in the years ahead. Now is the time, and here is the opportunity, to encourage that type of decision making on the environment by including information about environmental impacts on ticketing and the CAA could that. We will therefore seek to test support for new clause 6.
	Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, said:
	“The Government has refused to recommit to the targets on reducing emissions from aviation set by the previous Labour government and has yet to respond positively to the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation that this should be extended to include the UK’s share of international emissions, which is explicitly covered by the amendment.”
	I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. I cannot repeat what my right hon. Friend said about the Liberal Democrats, unless the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) wants me to. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] Well, she was not very kind to the Liberal Democrats. She said that they were “meekly” following the Government in rejecting our amendments. Clearly she anticipated their exact response, which is entirely inconsistent with their pre-election stance on dealing with the environmental impact of aviation.
	We think that the Government should be bolder, cleaner and greener, and should accept the principle of environmental duty. If we do not receive the reassurance that we seek from the Minister—and I do not expect that we shall—we will seek to divide the House on amendment 3 and new clause 6.
	Let me end by quoting recommendation 38 of the Transport Committee’s report. I see that the highly regarded independent Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—for whom the whole House has regard—is present. Her Committee said:
	“Without giving the CAA a supplementary duty on the environment in relation to its economic regulation role, there is some risk that airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance. Whilst, as the Minister says, there may be ‘absolutely no doubt’ about measures taken to comply with statutory environmental obligations, there remains a doubt about whether the costs of discretionary measures, such as improved public transport access, can be recovered by airports in charges to airlines.”
	That is one recommendation that we solidly support, which is why we wish to press the new clause and amendment to a vote at the appropriate time.

John McDonnell: I support all the new clauses and amendments, and I am sure that when the Minister has explained what her amendment is, I will support it as well.
	I thought that Members throughout the House had learned as a result of the debate on the third runway and overall aviation strategy that—as the Select Committee
	has said—it was necessary for proper account to be taken of the environmental impact of the development of aviation, and of airports in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pointed out, this evening we have been presented with an opportunity to ensure that that happens.
	Let me explain why this is important to my community. Tonight I am to attend the annual general meeting of the Harmondsworth and Sipson residents association, which will also be attended by representatives of each of the Heathrow villages, including Longford, Harlington and, I hope, Cranford Cross. The issues that will concern them are the issues in the amendments. They will be concerned about the noise from the airport itself and about the environmental impact of air pollution, but also about the future of their villages. In other words, they will be concerned about the overall impact of the airport on their local communities.
	New clause 6—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse has spoken so eloquently, both today and in Committee—highlights the fact that the measures taken so far to address the problem of noise pollution from the airport have simply not worked. There has been some improvement, but nothing like the improvement that we want as a local community, and certainly nothing that is acceptable. There is a voluntary agreement at Heathrow purely and simply to provide insulation for a limited number of properties—private houses, and some public buildings—but although that is welcome, it is a voluntary agreement and has had no impact in bearing down on the noise from the airport. I believe that posing the threat of a compensation scheme will focus the minds of the airport authorities and the aviation industry, and will constitute a promise to local residents of at least some compensation.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked how such a scheme could be devised. We arrived at the idea of the insulation scheme and devised it during our debates, and although there was no actual consensus, at least we secured agreement in some form. I am sure that we can use that as a model for our scheme, which is being consulted on at present. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to devise an appropriate scheme and build upon it for the future.
	A group of my constituents live in the most air-polluted area of the whole country, along with the City of London. That is reflected in the incidence of respiratory conditions and cancer in the area. We have been designated an air quality management zone, but that has had no effect whatever on the level of air pollution in the area, because of the increase in aviation. Therefore, I support the amendments that place a responsibility on the CAA and the Secretary of State to look at environmental impacts, including air pollution and emissions. They contribute to climate change as well.
	The Bill provides us with an opportunity to make this a cross-party priority. That will send the aviation industry the message that we must address these issues. Air quality management zones and all the other policies of the past 20 years have had very little impact.
	I welcome the amendments that would place a duty on the Secretary of State and the CAA to take into account the overall impact of aviation activities on local communities. That is important for my community.
	BAA and the aviation industry have taken no account of the impact of their activities on the village of Sipson. They have blighted the Heathrow villages for almost 20 years as a result of threats of expansion. They have brought in a bond scheme whereby they have bought up the village of Sipson, even though the Government have now said there will be no third runway, for which I thank them. The Labour Opposition have said exactly the same; we are opposed to a third runway now. There is cross-House consensus on this, therefore. I am not completely sure that that is written in blood, but it will be if there is any going back on the commitment.
	However, BAA is still not giving up those properties. In fact, this month it has bought more, and it has housed people in them on a temporary basis—for 12 months or two years. That has destabilised Sipson.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that aviation is vital not only to this country, but to the community he represents, and certainly to the community I represent. I therefore want to understand the drift of his comments. Is he saying that BAA should cease to operate and that Heathrow should shut down? What exactly is he proposing?

John McDonnell: I wish I hadn’t bothered now! We must not go back to that level of debate. The hon. Gentleman is one of the most intelligent new Members of the House, and I have even started to read his books. We must not get dragged down into such trite debates. We will meet separately and work together to develop a strategy to enhance the economic benefits of Heathrow for both our communities, as I did with his predecessor. The debate is not about whether to close Heathrow; it is about how to strike the right balance between enhancing the employment benefits and protecting the environment, and that is all that these amendments do. They simply say to the Secretary of State and the CAA, “You need to take into account the environmental implications and the effects on local communities.”
	What has happened in Sipson has not been taken into account. BAA is still buying properties and letting them out on a short-term basis. The community is therefore continuously blighted. There is no compensation for the local businesses—the butcher, the hairdresser, the local post office and pub. Their loyal clientele is now gone, and some of those businesses are closing down while the others can no longer earn a living.
	We have met BAA and I have met Colin Marshall. I pushed the boat out and took him for a coffee in central Hayes. I sought to see whether at least some support could be devised for those local businesses to tide them over while they build up the loyal base again as best they can. The answer was no. Only two weeks ago, the board rejected that request. What is happening now? It is offering a small element to try to tart up the front of the shops—that is all.
	That is the sort of blight that has occurred as a result of the activities of BAA—well not BAA, but Ferrovial, the Spanish company founded by a fascist under Franco that has now exploited my community to maximise its profits and ship them abroad to prop up the construction corporation, which is now having financial trouble. So I welcome the opportunity that these amendments would provide to place that duty on the CAA and the Secretary of State to ensure that the impact on local communities
	is taken into account. If these duties were in place now, BAA would have to introduce a compensation scheme for those local businesses in Sipson; it would have to stop blighting the overall area; it would have to introduce a scheme to compensate my constituents for the noise pollution they are experiencing; and it would have to drive down on its operations that are producing such air pollution in my area.
	I finish by saying that some of my local schools around Heathrow have a box into which children put their pumps when they go into class in the morning. They do so because they suffer from such a range of respiratory conditions, particularly asthma. In Hillingdon, we now specifically train our teachers on how to deal with asthma attacks in class; this is as a result of the air pollution, particularly that from the airport itself. The amendments are some of the most significant in terms of attempting to affect the environmental impact of aviation in this country that we have seen for many a year, and they should be treated seriously. New clause 6 should be treated seriously, because the noise affects not only people’s enjoyment, but their health, as has been shown in recent research. I am pleased that new clause 6 is being put to the test in the House tonight. Even if the Government cannot accept the other amendments, I would welcome it if they would think again, as we go into this consultation on aviation overall, to see how we can build in better environmental protections for the local communities against the expansion and operations of aviation overall.

Julie Hilling: I will not speak for long, but I wish to express the enormous disappointment, among not only the green groups, but the many people who live near airports and are affected by them, at the fact that the Government did not put an environmental duty in the Bill. I accept that the amendments that we are proposing do not go as far as we would have wanted this Bill to go. However, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) demonstrated exactly why we need at least to include these amendments in the Bill and to continue to work for the future to ensure that those measures operate across all airports.
	There is great concern worldwide about air travel’s effect on the environment and the damage it can do to the ozone layer, but many more people are concerned about what happens day to day. They are concerned about the effect of airports on their daily lives. Noise is the most obvious issue we talk about when we debate airports and although it is, of course, a very serious issue, it affects a smaller group of people than other environmental concerns.
	Similarly the actual flight makes up only a small part of the carbon footprint of any journey by air. We also need to consider: the environmental costs of getting people to the airport by road and rail; the cost of road congestion, which is a huge issue in my community in Greater Manchester; and the cost to the environment of the car parking spaces that seem to spread across the fields, particularly around Heathrow and Gatwick, where we seem to grow cars instead of crops.
	Of course the industry faces competing priorities. Its main priority has to be getting passengers to their destination in the most profitable way possible. Profits—or at least costs—are even more important for regional
	airports, many of which are struggling to survive at the moment. For airports it is about having as many flights as possible. Airports such as Heathrow are having to work out how to squeeze them into the restricted air and ground space. It is about getting passengers to the airport in the easiest way possible because the operators need to ensure that passengers choose to travel with them in the future. To believe that operators will consider environmental issues out of the goodness of their hearts seems somewhat naive.
	Manchester, my local airport, does what it can to be a good neighbour. It has invested greatly in rail links and other mitigating measures and it is now investing in Metrolink to bring more people to the airport. I do not believe, however, that a vague requirement, rather than an absolute duty, is enough.
	As was discussed in Committee, I do not believe that passengers make a choice because of the green credentials of their airport. I am sure that other passengers, like me, work out where they want to go, what price it will be and how easy it will be to get to the airport. Deciding whether to fly or catch a train might be my one environmental consideration, but I do not make any further considerations in choosing where to go. Furthermore, as has been said, other regulators, such as the Office of Rail Regulation, have a duty on environmental concerns. It seems a bit perverse when we are considering new duties for the CAA not to say that it should have an environmental duty.
	We must say to the aviation industry that the environment is a big issue, both in terms of its carbon footprint and for those who live near airports, who are extremely disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill as an opportunity to consider the problems and do something about them. Yes, the amendments are not all that we would want, but they are a start. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support them, particularly those people who have argued long and hard about their environmental concerns.

Pat Glass: At the beginning of the debate, I said that I felt that the Bill was essentially a good one with a number of omissions, and perhaps the most glaring omission of all is the statutory environmental duty. That statutory duty was part of the Bill when it was drafted by the previous Government, and it is not clear to me why the “greenest Government ever” would remove it.
	In Committee, the Minister told us that the Bill is about economic regulation and that there is therefore no room for a statutory environmental duty. However, the Bill is about much more than simply the economic regulation of the CAA. If was just about economic regulation, it would not include safety or security or an extension of the air travel organisers’ licence. It is not a clean and simple Bill about economic regulation; it is a long overdue consolidation and updating of regulations covering a wide range of issues in which those sections dealing with a statutory duty on environmental issues should have been included but have been deliberately expunged.
	I could perhaps understand the Government’s reluctance to include the environmental duty if the CAA was the only economic regulator to have such a statutory duty placed on it. We have heard the Minister say in response to that point that the Bill only covers certain airports,
	but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has said, in some areas, such as security, it covers all airports.

Theresa Villiers: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Pat Glass: May I finish this point? I will then be happy to give way.
	Even if the Bill covered only certain airports, would it not be a good start to begin with the biggest airports in the country? The Minister has also said—I am sure she will say it again when she intervenes—that other economic regulators, such as Ofgem and Ofwat, have universal jurisdiction, but that is not true. Ofgem does not have universal jurisdiction. Huge areas of this country, particularly rural areas, are off gas and are therefore not covered by Ofgem. I know that because I and other Members of the House have consistently campaigned to extend Ofgem’s jurisdiction to make it universal. I am sorry, but the Minister’s argument is just not correct.

Theresa Villiers: Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made points about parts of the Bill covering all airports, and that is undoubtedly true, but the amendments relate to economic regulation. So, the amendments seek to use economic regulation as a means of achieving environmental objectives. That is one of my fundamental objections. If we are going regulate for environmental purposes, we need to do it across the board in a proportionate, targeted and efficient way, not via economic regulation.

Pat Glass: And I would agree if we had before us some regulation that would cover all airports, but we do not. So I am sorry: we have to start somewhere.
	Moving on to the impact of the statutory duty, I cannot believe that anyone would argue that it is not needed. I appreciate that aviation emissions currently make up 6% of UK emissions, but we all know that that is expected to rise to as much as 25%, even if the Government stick to the current targets and even if those targets are met. But as we heard today, environmental issues around airports and air travel go much further than concerns about emissions. They include air quality around airports and in the wider environment, they include noise pollution at and around airports and they include surface transport links and access. As we heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), a recognised expert in this area, most pollution around airports does not actually come from planes; it comes from vehicles going to, from and around airports. Those living around and close to airports are naturally concerned about air quality and noise pollution, and they will be very unhappy to see the Government remove the statutory duty from the Bill.
	Finally, I want to move on to the issue of emissions, which are of concern to us all. We all need to know that the CAA will pay proper regard to playing its part in meeting the 2015 targets, in a world in which emissions from aviation are going to increase, and in which the emissions challenge will simply get harder and harder. I do not understand, in this situation of increasing challenge, why the Government are choosing to remove the statutory duty.
	I was not surprised that Conservative members of the Bill Committee voted down environmental safeguards, but I was particularly disappointed and surprised that Lib Dem members of the Committee did so too. Listening to the nice warm words today from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) only increases my surprise and disappointment. I recall that in Committee, he said that he was not supporting our amendment because it was not strong enough. We have had six weeks. He had an opportunity to table much stronger amendments himself, both in Committee and today, and what have we seen? Nothing. All we have seen is the hon. Gentleman turning himself almost inside-out in an attempt to face both ways at the same time. However, all is not lost. He and his Lib Dem colleagues do have an opportunity to salve their conscience, and to have the courage of their convictions by voting for a statutory environmental duty in the Lobby this evening.

Theresa Villiers: I would like to assure the House that the coalition takes the environmental impacts of aviation very seriously—both its constituent parties. We take seriously both its global impact in terms of carbon emissions and its local impact in terms of noise and air quality. I welcome the contributions made by so many hon. Members this afternoon about the significance of those impacts—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Although I have some sympathy with the underlying purpose of the amendments, there are a number of important reasons why I cannot ask the House to support them today.
	I do understand the concerns expressed, by, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and groups such as HACAN—Heathrow Association for the Control of Airport Noise—and AirportWatch. I know that my hon. Friend is looking for further clarity on environmental investment and I hope I can provide some reassurance today on that and on how the Bill will work. I will also say to my hon. Friend and others who have expressed a view today that the Government will continue to listen with great care to the concerns raised on environmental matters, including those set out in the debate today. We shall continue to reflect carefully on whether further clarity needs to be provided in the Bill, and no doubt there will be another opportunity to consider this matter in the other place. The aviation policy framework that we shall publish next spring provides another key opportunity to address the full range of the environmental impacts of aviation and establish the best way to deal with them.
	In the Government’s view, the Bill as currently drafted allows the CAA to authorise reasonable investment in measures that mitigate environmental impact, even where they are voluntarily undertaken. Where environmental measures benefit users of air transport services in the provision of airport operation services, the Bill gives the CAA the power to allow for its costs in the regulatory settlement.
	The CAA made clear in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee that a system that safeguards the interests of end users and seeks to replicate a functioning market, as this system does, can and does embrace investment in environmental measures and surface access improvements.
	Iain Osborne of the CAA pointed out in his evidence that unregulated airports across the world invest in environmental measures. For example, although its noise mitigation scheme is now mandated as part of a planning agreement, Birmingham airport operated a voluntary scheme from 1978 to 1996. Since 2003 the airport has also operated a voluntary scheme to provide roof protection for properties affected by roof damage from aircraft vortices. Other examples include East Midlands airport’s investment in wind turbines and Bournemouth airport’s investment in solar panels. We firmly believe that it will continue to be possible for environmental investment to be authorised under the regulatory system proposed in the Bill. I hope that that provides some clarity and reassurance.
	I would like to emphasise that our approach to the Bill does not mean that we do not believe regulation is necessary to address the environmental impact of aviation. It is clear that protecting our environment does need regulatory intervention. However, airport economic regulation is not the right vehicle to deliver it. Environmental regulation should be applied fairly and evenly across the whole sector, taking on board the impact of different airports regardless of whether they are subject to economic regulation. When it comes to protecting our environment, it does not make sense to treat one airport differently from others merely because it is subject to economic regulation.
	Environmental impacts are present at every airport and it is fairer, more rational and more efficient to look at the aviation sector across the board in deciding what regulatory intervention is needed on environmental matters. So I cannot support new clause 6, though I very much share the concerns of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston about the noise impact of aircraft.
	The aviation policy framework which is due to be adopted by March 2013 is a more efficient way to address environmental impacts across the whole of the aviation sector. It will be a serious document informed by extensive consultation and based on evidence. It will set a framework for enabling aviation to grow and play its part in economic growth and success, but subject to parameters which ensure that on issues such as noise and carbon, the sector plays its part in achieving our climate change goals and protecting the quality of life of local communities.
	I would like to reassure hon. Members that the CAA already takes environmental matters very seriously. Outside the sphere of economic regulation, the CAA is taking forward a number of environment-focused initiatives, as emphasised by Dr Barry Humphreys from the British Air Transport Association in his evidence to the Committee. The CAA has recently finalised a consultation on a wide-ranging programme of work on the environment, including improving the sector’s CO2 performance.
	I draw the attention of the House to the important information provisions in clause 84 as a more effective way to mitigate environmental impacts by, as we heard today, harnessing consumer power as part of our efforts to speed up progress to a switch to cleaner, quieter planes that emit less CO2.
	I cannot support amendments 6 and 7. They are both significantly flawed. Amendment 6 has been tabled to the wrong clause for a start, and as my hon. Friend the
	Member for Cambridge pointed out, both amendments are manifestly already covered in the Bill by clause 84(1)(a). Inserting them into the Bill might cause drafting confusion and inhibit the CAA from focusing on matters such as noise and air quality.
	In conclusion, I have responded in some detail to the amendments because I appreciate the importance of the issues raised and the finely balanced arguments, particularly on the point about clarity in relation to the continuing ability of regulated airports to invest in environmental measures. I understand those concerns. I believe that the regulatory regime provided for in the Bill will continue to allow reasonable levels of investment in environmental mitigation because this is an undoubted feature of airports operating in competitive markets.
	As I said, we will continue to reflect on that. Although we certainly need environmental measures that go beyond those that would be delivered by the market, economic regulation is not the best way to deliver them. They should be applied in a proportionate way across the sector, regardless of whether or not an airport happens to be subject to economic regulation. In our forthcoming aviation policy framework we will give careful consideration to providing that proportionate and effective environmental legislation. I ask Members to reject the amendments.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Minister for her comments. I appreciate having the opportunity today to air these issues, particularly the concerns of local residents in my constituency of Feltham and Heston, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his poignant description of the problems children face, particularly the impact of pollution and noise on their quality of life. Having listened to the debate, I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the need for greater clarity on who will be responsible and how we will mitigate local pollution and noise impacts. This is not the end of that debate, but I realise that there will be value in waiting for the Government’s strategy on a national sustainable aviation framework to see how we might be able to move forward through that route. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave,  withdrawn .

Clause 1
	  
	CAA’s general duty

Amendment proposed: 3,page2,line17, after ‘Chapter’, insert—
	‘(ea) the need to work with NATS, the Secretary of State, the Committee on Climate Change and air transport service providers towards meeting the United Kingdom’s greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations as set out in the UK’s Carbon Budget, including the UK’s share of international aviation emissions’.—(Jim  Fitzpatrick .)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 205, Noes 269.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18
	  
	Licence conditions

Amendment proposed: 9,page13,line17, at end add—
	‘(3) A licence must include provisions requiring the holder of a licence to develop passenger welfare plans.’.—(Jim Fitzpatrick.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 204, Noes 274.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 63
	  
	Competition Act 1998: supplementary

Amendment made: 14,page38,line42, at end insert—
	‘( ) In this section “relevant 1998 Act functions” means functions specified in section 62(2).’.—(Mrs Villiers.)

Clause 70
	  
	Joint operators of airport areas

Amendment made: 15,page42,line28, at end insert—
	‘( ) Regulations under section 9 may include provision about when two or more persons are or are not to be treated for the purposes of this Part as jointly having such responsibility.
	( ) The CAA’s power under section 10 to make a determination includes power to determine whether, in a particular case, two or more persons have such responsibility.’.—(Mrs Villiers.)

Clause 77
	  
	Crown application

Amendment made: 19,page46,line5, after ‘functions’, insert ‘—
	(a) section7(2) (requirement to make market power determination) does not apply in respect of area C,
	(b) section14(4) (deemed application for licence where airport area becomes dominant) does not apply in relation to the operator, and
	(c) ’.—(Mrs Villiers.)

Clause 84
	  
	Environmental information

Amendment made: 16,page52,line9, after first ‘or’, insert ‘proposed’.—(Mrs Villiers.)
	Amendment proposed: 6,page52,line11, at end insert—
	‘(d) greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of international air transport services from a civil airport and domestic air transport services to or from a civil airport.’.—(Jim Fitzpatrick.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 203, Noes 273.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 11
	  
	Aviation security directions etc: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 17,page110,line30, after ‘aircraft)’ insert ‘—
	(a) ’.
	Amendment 18,page110,line31, at end insert ‘, and
	(b) for “that Authority” substitute “the CAA”.’.—(Mrs Villiers.)
	Bill to be read a Third time tomorrow.

Robert Flello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Herman Henry Diaz, a leading Fensuagro Colombian trade union activist, is suspected of having been forcibly disappeared a few days ago. He was organising a delegation of activists from the Putumayo department. He was last seen in the Puerto Vega area, a heavily militarised region, which raises real concerns that he may have been detained, or worse, by the Colombian army, which has form on this. I have personally met Mr Diaz. Mr Speaker, may I ask, through you, whether the Foreign Secretary would be prepared to make immediate representations calling for his release and for the Colombian authorities to guarantee his safety?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I cannot speak for the Foreign Secretary on this matter, and I have no knowledge that the Foreign Secretary is present in the House today, or no certain knowledge to the contrary. However, knowing the way in which these things work and the efficiency of Foreign Office mandarins, I confidently predict that the content of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order will wing its way to the Foreign Secretary or his officials very soon. More particularly, in the interim, the hon. Gentleman’s concern is on the record, and I thank him for raising it.

POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Francois.)

Wayne David: We on this side of the House were not in favour of the introduction of police and crime commissioners, but Parliament agreed that they should be introduced and the first elections will be held on 15 November. It is imperative that, in the run-up to the elections, every effort should be made to familiarise the electorate with the role of PCCs, with the candidates and with the electoral system that will be used—namely, the supplementary vote.
	Members will recall that the elections for PCCs were originally planned for May this year, but the Government decided to delay them until November. The Home Secretary explained to the House that more time was needed before the elections to ensure that the general public were aware of the role of commissioners and of who would be standing for election in their local area. All well and good, we might think, but here we are, less than seven months before the elections, and as far as I can tell, the Government are making painfully slow progress towards deciding what measures will be put in place to facilitate them. It is vital that such measures be put in place as soon as is humanly possible, to ensure that the elections are part of the democratic process.
	It is a well established principle that all the necessary secondary legislation should be in place at least six months before a poll. We are moving close to 15 May, so will the Government make a firm commitment that the necessary secondary legislation will be in place by that date?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend might also wish to ask the Government whether it is indeed the Cabinet Office that—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not customary or desirable for Members to intervene from the Front Bench in these Adjournment debates? I gave an indication in response to a point of order yesterday of the distinction between an intervention and a speech in other people’s Adjournment debates, but that ruling referred to Back Benchers. This is a very unusual practice, and the right hon. Gentleman is not normally given to unusual practices, as far as I am aware.

Wayne David: That is absolutely correct, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend is not known for unusual practices in any shape or form. I think that he was about to make a fair point, however. It is strange that the Minister who is to respond to the debate is not from the Home Office, when it is the Home Office that has responsibility for the matter under consideration. Instead, we have a Minister from the Cabinet Office. Perhaps he will explain the reason for this when he responds to the debate.
	The Minister—although he is from the Cabinet Office—will be aware that genuine concern has been expressed by Members in this House and the other place that the Government do not intend to have a publicly funded mailing or booklet distributed locally, giving details of the candidates standing in the elections for police and
	crime commissioners. Like the Electoral Commission, I believe that the Government have failed to recognise the importance of such material.

Mark Williams: The Government’s assertion is that there will be a central website on which all our constituents can readily access information about the candidates. Has the hon. Gentleman examined the difficulties that that could pose, certainly for my constituents in Ceredigion and across the Dyfed-Powys area who have no internet provision?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I agree with him completely. In the last Government, I was, among other things, the deputy Minister with responsibility for digital inclusion. I know only too well that some 7 million adults in England—excluding London—and Wales do not have internet access and have not used the internet at all in the past 12 months. Sadly, those people will not have the same access to information as those individuals who have digital computer access. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it is people in rural areas and the elderly who will be disadvantaged, as they will not have the same access to the kind of information that I believe they should have.

Jessica Morden: Does my hon. Friend agree that having a website is not bad in itself, but that it is a radical departure from how we usually run elections, particularly when the elections are new and are taking place at a different time of year under an unfamiliar voting system?

Wayne David: Yes, my hon. Friend makes entirely valid points. Nobody is against having a Home Office website with information about the candidates, but that must be as well as, not instead of, other forms of information. I think that the Government have made a mistake here.
	The Government have, albeit wrongly, set their face against this proposal, so in the brief time available, I will not go over old arguments. Instead, I want to focus on a number of areas in respect of which I hope the Government will listen and improve their draft legislation. Before I go on to those points, I would like the Government to assure us that the website will be accessible to all and that the information on it will be provided in minority languages. In particular, as a Welshman, I would hope that a Welsh language version of the website will be available and that Welsh language speakers will be available for the helpline. Perhaps the Minister can provide information about that. I also hope that the information will be provided in alternative formats—in Braille or in large print, for example. I shall now move on to focus on other areas where the Government could improve their draft legislation.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the election of a police or crime commissioner should be based not on popularity alone, but on experience, ability and years of service? Does he have any thoughts on how that could be brought into the process in such a way that the bright person gets the job because they have the ability to do it well?

Wayne David: I think it is important that the electorate know what the position involves and the job entails, as well as the qualities of the respective individuals being
	put forward. I am a democrat; I have faith in the electorate to make the appropriate decisions, provided, of course, that they have been given the appropriate information on which to base their decisions. That is why I believe this debate is so important.
	To return to the specifics of the draft legislation, under the Government’s plans, police area returning officers—PAROs for short—will accept or reject material from candidates standing for election on 15 November. They will check and approve the material they receive, and then pass it on to the Home Office so that it can publish that material on its website. It is pretty clear to me that this will be a sensitive role for these officers, so I urge the Government to ensure that the criteria by which PAROs have to assess the material are set out clearly and in detail—much more clearly, I would suggest, than is the case in the draft secondary legislation.
	Secondly, the Electoral Commission will, to its credit, produce a booklet for every household where PCC elections are taking place. This is particularly important because the elections will take place at an unfamiliar time of year in November, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has said, and using a voting system—the supplementary vote system—that most people will not have used before. May I have an assurance from the Government that sufficient resources will be provided to the Electoral Commission for this information dissemination work to be carried out properly?
	Generally, it is essential that guidance for candidates, agents, campaigners and returning officers is provided well in advance of the elections in November. The Government should note that the Electoral Commission wants most of these guidelines in place very soon so that they can be published and spread widely three months before the start of the regulated period. Of particular concern is the need to publish the limits on the amount of money that PCC candidates can spend during the last few weeks of the campaign, and I would hope that the spending limit for each specific police area—not a complicated calculation and a formula—is set out on the face of the secondary legislation. That is the way to ensure clarity.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. What worries me is that there will be no publicly funded mailing, and that individual candidates will be able to issue their own literature. That, surely, creates the possibility that the person who can afford the most literature will win the election, which is profoundly unfair.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman’s point reinforces the need for clearly defined limits to ensure that there is no confusion or ambiguity, and that every candidate in every police area is aware of the limits that apply to him or her. There should also be stipulations governing third parties to prevent candidates from receiving indirect financial support.
	I am acutely aware that, in all probability, mayoral elections will take place on the same day as the PCC elections in some parts of England. Obviously no one can foretell what will happen in the elections that will be held in a number of English cities, but the odds are that
	they will take place concurrently, and I know that the two sets of elections will be overseen by two separate Departments, the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government. Indeed, it is possible that a third will be involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned the Cabinet Office earlier. How will it be involved in all this? That is yet another ingredient in the mix.
	Both the mayoral and the PCC elections will use the supplementary vote system, and I hope that voters will be presented with two differently designed ballot papers. That is important, because, as I have said, at least two Departments will be directly involved in running these concurrent elections. Government co-operation and a joint approach will be necessary, so that the electorate are not confused by the process. There will also be room for considerable confusion if PCC candidates are expected to communicate with voters through a website while mayoral candidates rely on locally distributed booklets, given that the elections will take place on the same day. Whether we like it or not—and I consider the position to be very unsatisfactory—there will inevitably be some confusion, because the basic means of communication will be provided through different mediums. I am keen for those difficulties to be minimised.
	It is possible that the Home Office will find all this work a little too much. We are all aware of the difficulties that it is experiencing. I respectfully ask the Minister to suggest to his colleagues in the Home Office that they should consider having a word with the Deputy Prime Minister to see whether it would be possible to bring in some Cabinet Office experience. Being entirely objective, the Minister knows a heck of a lot more about these issues than the Home Office—which is supposed to be conducting the elections—and I suspect that that is why he is here tonight.

Huw Irranca-Davies: One issue that has not yet been clarified is the future of Victim Support, some of whose representatives visited me in my constituency last week. They expressed concern about what the implications for the expertise of the existing 7,000 volunteers, and about possible costs, bureaucracy and fragmentation of the service. Perhaps the Home Office will consider that as well.

Wayne David: That is a fair point. Similar representations have been made to me. There is genuine concern among people involved in Victim Support about the fact that the police commissioners will have that responsibility in addition to their other responsibilities. We are, after all, talking about finite resources, and the possibility that moneys allocated for one purpose will be used for another purpose as well is causing concern. However, I am sure that the Minister will be able to allay the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and, indeed, others outside the House.
	It is essential that the PCC elections on 15 November are successful. There must be a good turnout, therefore, and the electorate must be well informed. That is why this debate is important, and I hope the Government will get a move on and get the draft legislation made into final proposals that they then put before the House so everybody is clear where we stand and we can make genuine preparations for successful democratic elections on 15 November.

Mark Harper: First, let me say that unlike in the previous Government, Ministers from different Departments in this Government speak to each other. We work closely. I am here tonight because I work closely with my colleagues in the Home Office. The Cabinet Office has overall responsibility for electoral policy—owned by the Deputy Prime Minister—and I work closely with Home Office Ministers. My officials in the Cabinet Office work very closely with Home Office officials. We are a very joined-up operation. That may be a new notion to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), as he served in the dysfunctional last Labour Government where the Prime Minister and Chancellor could not bring themselves to speak to each other, but things have changed since the last election.

Wayne David: I am saddened, and rather surprised, that the Minister should make a factional and crudely political point in a debate that is about democratic involvement and popular participation.
	I am also surprised by what the Minister said about the Home Office. Taking his logic to its conclusion, he or one of his departmental colleagues should answer questions on PCC elections at Home Office questions, but that is not the case.

Mark Harper: The Home Office leads on policy on PCCs, but that also involves elections. The situation is just the same as in respect of the Department for Communities and Local Government: I work closely with my colleagues in that Department, and its officials work closely with my officials. We have joined-up policy across the Government. That is sensible.
	As the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of departmental responsibility—and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) tried to raise it—I thought it was worth making that initial point in response. I was also going to say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very complimentary words about me; I wish to be suitably gracious about what he said.
	The directly elected PCCs represent a radical reform of policing. The hon. Gentleman’s party was not initially in favour of them, but I am glad that now that Parliament has passed the legislation, it is participating in this process. Indeed, many prominent Labour figures will, perhaps, be candidates in these elections, including Lord Prescott, who has now been converted to the merits of PCCs and the importance of giving more power and control to the public—letting the public choose the people who set policing priorities, rather than their being set by the Home Office.
	The PCC elections will be very valuable, and the public will be very interested in them. The police.uk website has had 47 million hits. The public are interested in local crime matters and how police officers conduct their work and how they are deployed. I know from conversations with my constituents and chief constable that people are very interested. I therefore think people will get engaged in this process, despite the fact that the elections will be held in November. There will be a decent turnout, I believe.

Chris Evans: rose—

Jessica Morden: rose—

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman who secured the debate spoke for just over half the time available, so let me address at least some of his questions before taking interventions from other Members.
	Our view is that top-down control, with chief constables looking upwards to the Home Office, did not work particularly well, so we want locally democratically accountable figures setting policy. However, operational matters will, of course, remain the responsibility of the chief constable. There will be police and crime panels to ensure that there is scrutiny and transparency.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about the elections themselves and I shall deal with some of them in turn. As I said, I am pleased that so many Members of this House and the other place are stepping forward and that we are seeing candidates from across the country. I think we will have a good slate of experienced people. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I believe that a number of people who have had experience in the criminal justice system, some of whom are former police officers but others of whom have been involved in that system, have put their names forward. So I think that the public will be offered a good range of candidates—people with practical experience and people with policy-making experience. Like the hon. Member for Caerphilly, I trust the public to be able to sort out the qualities that they want in police and crime commissioners and to make the right decisions in November.
	The Government agree that it is important that candidates get their message out. To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), candidates obviously have a responsibility to do that themselves. Of course it is not the case that candidates can spend a limitless amount of money; there will be limits on expenditure, which will be broadly proportionate to those for other types of election. So candidates will be able to spend some money, but they will not be able to spend limitless sums. We thought carefully about how we could assist candidates in doing that, and provisions will be made in the draft legislation to enable candidates, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, to publish information on the centrally funded website.
	In addition, if the public are not able to use the website, they will be able to call a freephone number and request, on demand, printed information to be sent to them directly. We recognise that this is a novel approach, which has not been tried before, but we think that that blend of online and on-demand information will be very helpful. The website and the print-on-demand phone number will be printed on polling cards sent out in advance of the election.

Mark Williams: rose —

Mark Harper: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will adopt the same stricture as I did in respect of Labour Members. Let me deal with the points that the hon. Member for Caerphilly raised, as it is his debate, and if we have time, I will be happy to take further interventions.
	Polling cards will contain that information, so it will be widely distributed to voters. The Electoral Commission, with which we are working closely, will include that
	contact and access information in its own literature—indeed, this will be in the booklet that it is distributing to households, which will provide some information about the elections and the supplementary vote system.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised the issue of internet access. Although 77% or so of the population can use the internet, we recognise that there are people who cannot; my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) referred to people who live in his constituency in this regard. That is why we have the combination of online and print-on-demand information. I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Caerphilly, as I anticipated that he would ask about this, that the information will be available in both English and Welsh. Candidates will be able to submit their information to go on the website in either language, and we will make sure that the website content and the printed copies are available in both languages. We will of course make sure that the information is available in a range of accessible formats for those voters who have some form of disability, to make sure that we maximise the opportunities for people to see the information.
	Let me deal with why we have chosen that option rather than completely free mailings paid for by the taxpayer. We did consider funding mailings of the type used for UK parliamentary and European elections. We are minded to conclude—this is our preferred option on the website, rather than our final position—that at a time when budgets are tight, it is difficult to justify those mailings for PCC elections. There are also some logistical difficulties involved in producing a candidates booklet, such as those used for mayoral elections. The difficulties are partly to do with the size of the PCC areas and having to produce the 41 booklets simultaneously; this would be very difficult to co-ordinate across the country. We think that the approach we have adopted is a proportionate one that will give people access to the information. We will, of course, look at the experience in practice; we will look very carefully at what happens. I am sure that hon. Members in this House will not be backward in coming forward about any issues, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be sure to tell us of issues in his area in Wales. We will look at this carefully but we are confident that we have adopted a sensible approach; we have worked closely with stakeholders and we think it will be successful.
	As I mentioned, the Electoral Commission will be working on some public awareness information. This is in its plan, so it is in the money that it has bid for and had approved by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and by the House. This is something that has been in the Electoral Commission’s programme, so I am confident that it will be effective.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly also asked about the conduct rules. The elections, as he said, will take place in every police force area in England and Wales outside London, although it is worth saying that the first time that people will be able to vote for the directly elected person who will control policing will be in the London mayoral election, now that the Mayor has that responsibility. The detail for the other elections will be in the secondary legislation that we intend to lay before the House shortly. I can confirm that “shortly” means by 15 May, so that legislation will be laid before the House six months before the elections.
	We have, of course, worked closely with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, returning officers, the Local Government Association, the Welsh Government, the Wales Office and the Association of Police Authorities, among others, to check that the legislation is in good order and that it will work in practice. Preparations have started. The police area returning officers will be administering the elections across the police force areas, a number of meetings have taken place and the preparations are in good order.
	The hon. Gentleman asked one or two other questions and I have dealt with his question about the language. He raised some concerns about the website and I can make it very clear that the Government have ensured that they will have no role at all in the content on the website, which will be dealt with by the police area returning officers. The Government’s role is to set up the function and ensure that the information is posted; we will not have any editorial control at all, as is appropriate.

Wayne David: I accept entirely what the Minister is saying, but I was making the point that it is important for any Government—whatever their political complexion —not to be accused of any kind of interference. That is why the clarity of the secondary legislation is so important.

Mark Harper: I can confirm that the legislation will be drafted—I am sure this will be tested when it is debated in the House—to ensure that it is clear that there will be no opportunity for the Government to have in any role in deciding the content of the information. That would clearly not be appropriate.
	Let me come to the final point about victim support services, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). A move has been proposed—the consultation by the Ministry of Justice finished just a few days ago—to move from a national to a local model. The Government’s view, on which we consulted in our consultation document, is that rather than Whitehall attempting to pick those services and fund them across the country, the police and crime commissioners, who will be accountable to local people, will do a better job of making those judgments. I have read through the Ministry of Justice consultation document in full, as a local victim support organisation wrote to me in my capacity as a constituency MP and I wanted to ensure, having worked with Victim Support in the past, that I was confident about what would happen. I have been through the consultation document and I think the proposal is a good one that will mean more money gets spent, rather than less, and that decisions will be taken more locally. That makes sense, rather than trying to have a one-size-fits-all policy. The Ministry of Justice will consider the responses to the consultation very closely to see whether it needs to alter its policy in any way.
	I think that I have answered all of the points raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, so, as we have one or two moments, do any of my colleagues who jumped up to intervene earlier want to do so before I sit down?

Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the Welsh language, which is very important in large parts of Wales. What costings were made to
	examine combining the Electoral Commission’s booklet with an insertion from candidates?

Mark Harper: We did consider that and we discussed it with the Electoral Commission, which is, of course, producing one booklet to be distributed to every household across England and Wales. The difficulty is that if a booklet is going to be produced with the candidate information, 41 different versions will have to be produced.
	Logistically and for cost reasons, that is quite complicated. It is not quite as straightforward as my hon. Friend put it.
	I hope that I have dealt with colleagues’ concerns and I am pleased that the debate was so well attended. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly for raising points in the way that he did.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.